Zompist Bboard Again

Do I get this right that when writing song lyrics, it's the norm to capitalize the first word of each line, even if it's not called for syntactically? Or am I misunderstanding something?

It's at least something I see frequently, also in poetry (except when written by poets who totally ignore capitalisation).
The same is quite usual also in German, BTW.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Fri Jan 09, 2026 5:36 am It's at least something I see frequently, also in poetry (except when written by poets who totally ignore capitalisation).
The same is quite usual also in German, BTW.

Thank you!

Anyone else?

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Jan 09, 2026 5:31 am Do I get this right that when writing song lyrics, it's the norm to capitalize the first word of each line, even if it's not called for syntactically? Or am I misunderstanding something?

That's correct indeed.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Fri Jan 09, 2026 9:47 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Jan 09, 2026 5:31 am Do I get this right that when writing song lyrics, it's the norm to capitalize the first word of each line, even if it's not called for syntactically? Or am I misunderstanding something?

That's correct indeed.

Thank you, too!

Does anyone else have /əɪ/ in Eisenhower? It honestly feels quite odd for me to pronounce it with /aɪ/ for some reason.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Jan 09, 2026 6:46 pm Does anyone else have /əɪ/ in Eisenhower? It honestly feels quite odd for me to pronounce it with /aɪ/ for some reason.

Yes, that’s how I say it and perceive it (that is, it sounds wrong with /aɪ/).

Man in Space wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 10:07 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Jan 09, 2026 6:46 pm Does anyone else have /əɪ/ in Eisenhower? It honestly feels quite odd for me to pronounce it with /aɪ/ for some reason.

Yes, that’s how I say it and perceive it (that is, it sounds wrong with /aɪ/).

That's odd, as /aɪ/ is pretty much the established pronunciation?


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 5:36 am

Man in Space wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 10:07 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Jan 09, 2026 6:46 pm Does anyone else have /əɪ/ in Eisenhower? It honestly feels quite odd for me to pronounce it with /aɪ/ for some reason.

Yes, that’s how I say it and perceive it (that is, it sounds wrong with /aɪ/).

That's odd, as /aɪ/ is pretty much the established pronunciation?

/aɪ/ feels like a spelling pronunciation to me, as if one were trying to directly pronounce the original German Eisenhauer as spelled.

Opinion question -- I realize unpalatalized /s/ and /z/ differently even when devoiced and one ignores things like vowel length allophony, as shown by peace /pis/ versus peas /piz/, which I would narrowly transcribe as [ˈpʰis̪] (the /s/ is realized as laminal dentialveolar) and [ˈpʰiːs] (the /z/ is realized as laminal alveolar). Should I adopt this convention in general, or is this too narrow of transcription and would be confusing to others?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 7:59 am is this too narrow of transcription and would be confusing to others?

I think you passed that point a long time ago…

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 8:09 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 7:59 am is this too narrow of transcription and would be confusing to others?

I think you passed that point a long time ago…

In essence you're saying I should go for it, because my transcriptions are already overly narrow so it would have no practical further impact.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 7:41 am/aɪ/ feels like a spelling pronunciation to me, as if one were trying to directly pronounce the original German Eisenhauer as spelled.

Still, the pronunciation of that name is well-known, so why would you care about spelling pronunciations?


JAL

Why does "to swear" mean both "to perform an oath or vow" and "to use vulgar language"?

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 10:35 am Why does "to swear" mean both "to perform an oath or vow" and "to use vulgar language"?

Probably through "taking the Lord's name in vain".

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 10:35 am Why does "to swear" mean both "to perform an oath or vow" and "to use vulgar language"?

Why not? What do you find so strange about it? E.g., both can use religious lexicon to enforce the oath or to make the swearing stronger.

I'm not sure what connects them. And, one is fairly solemn, and one is fairly non-solemn.

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 11:33 amI'm not sure what connects them. And, one is fairly solemn, and one is fairly non-solemn.

Etyomonline says "The secondary sense of "use profane language" (early 15c.) probably developed from the notion of "invoke sacred names profanely or blasphemously" (mid-14c.)."

Note that there are so many examples of benign or sacred words becoming "bad language" in all languages, that the only striking thing here is perhaps that the original meaning is still used.


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Tue Jan 13, 2026 2:29 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 11:33 amI'm not sure what connects them. And, one is fairly solemn, and one is fairly non-solemn.

Etyomonline says "The secondary sense of "use profane language" (early 15c.) probably developed from the notion of "invoke sacred names profanely or blasphemously" (mid-14c.)."

Note that there are so many examples of benign or sacred words becoming "bad language" in all languages, that the only striking thing here is perhaps that the original meaning is still used.


JAL

Thank you!

Does anyone else have the impression that in British English, "Robin" is more likely to be seen as a men's given name, while in US English, it's more likely to be seen as a women's given name?