Zompist Bboard Again

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2026 8:34 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2026 8:30 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2026 8:24 am How would you describe the thing that fat in a frying pan does when it gets into contact with Teflon? "Bounces off"? "Gets deflected"?

Honestly, I don't have a special phrasing for this ─ I would just say that it "doesn't stick".

Thank you. I was wondering about using it as a figure of speech. Something like, "When you try to provide a proudly ignorant person with information, it [... ... ...] like fat off Teflon."

The usual expression is ‘water off a duck’s back’, or in this context ‘in one ear and out the other’.

Thank you!

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2026 8:39 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2026 8:34 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2026 8:30 am
Honestly, I don't have a special phrasing for this ─ I would just say that it "doesn't stick".

Thank you. I was wondering about using it as a figure of speech. Something like, "When you try to provide a proudly ignorant person with information, it [... ... ...] like fat off Teflon."

The usual expression is ‘water off a duck’s back’, or in this context ‘in one ear and out the other’.

In this context I would go with "in one ear and out the other" myself and not mention Teflon.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2026 9:40 am

In this context I would go with "in one ear and out the other" myself and not mention Teflon.

Well, I had wondered if I might be able to think of something a bit more innovative.

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2026 9:52 amWell, I had wondered if I might be able to think of something a bit more innovative.

"It sticks like oil to a Teflon pan" would work as an ad-hoc expression I'd say?


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2026 2:28 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2026 9:52 amWell, I had wondered if I might be able to think of something a bit more innovative.

"It sticks like oil to a Teflon pan" would work as an ad-hoc expression I'd say?


JAL

Yes, it might! Thank you!

In standard English terminology, do your in-laws stay your in-laws if you get a divorce, or do they become your former in-laws?

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 10:07 am In standard English terminology, do your in-laws stay your in-laws if you get a divorce, or do they become your former in-laws?

Depends how much you like them as people.

linguistcat wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 12:23 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 10:07 am In standard English terminology, do your in-laws stay your in-laws if you get a divorce, or do they become your former in-laws?

Depends how much you like them as people.

Now I'm wondering to which extent this is snark and to which extent it is serious.

I'd be surprised if that's different to German - your Schwieger-X becomes your Ex-Schwieger-X formally upon divorce, but you may go on referring to them without the "Ex" out of habit, especially, like linguistcat said, when you keep a good relationship with them. A big incentive to switch to "Ex-" then comes when you remarry or get a new significant other who reminds you that this is now an "Ex-" relationship.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2026 2:24 am

linguistcat wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 12:23 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 10:07 am In standard English terminology, do your in-laws stay your in-laws if you get a divorce, or do they become your former in-laws?

Depends how much you like them as people.

Now I'm wondering to which extent this is snark and to which extent it is serious.

To my knowledge, mostly serious.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2026 6:26 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2026 2:24 am

linguistcat wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 12:23 pm

Depends how much you like them as people.

Now I'm wondering to which extent this is snark and to which extent it is serious.

To my knowledge, mostly serious.

Thank you!

Does anyone else have a consistent phonemic contrast between enable and unable?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 8:42 pm Does anyone else have a consistent phonemic contrast between enable and unable?

Sure, [ɪ] vs. [ə]. (Maybe even [ə:], the vowel in un- is longer.)

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 9:19 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 8:42 pm Does anyone else have a consistent phonemic contrast between enable and unable?

Sure, [ɪ] vs. [ə]. (Maybe even [ə:], the vowel in un- is longer.)

Now, does anyone else who has the weak vowel merger still not merge these two words?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:13 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 9:19 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 8:42 pm Does anyone else have a consistent phonemic contrast between enable and unable?

Sure, [ɪ] vs. [ə]. (Maybe even [ə:], the vowel in un- is longer.)

Now, does anyone else who has the weak vowel merger still not merge these two words?

I don’t have the weak vowel merger, but unable has a full STRUT vowel, not schwa, so if I did the distinction would survive.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 8:42 pm Does anyone else have a consistent phonemic contrast between enable and unable?

ᵻˈnejbl / ˌʌnˈejbl

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2026 9:01 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 8:42 pm Does anyone else have a consistent phonemic contrast between enable and unable?

ᵻˈnejbl / ˌʌnˈejbl

Yeah, that's what I have (and my vowel in unable definitely not a schwa but rather a secondarily-stressed unrounded back vowel).

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2026 11:45 am

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2026 9:01 am ᵻˈnejbl / ˌʌnˈejbl

Yeah, that's what I have (and my vowel in unable definitely not a schwa but rather a secondarily-stressed unrounded back vowel).

I'd accept that for a phonemic representation. Phonetically I think there's a lot more wiggle room, and we always have to be careful about the difference in saying a word in isolation, and in fast speech.

zompist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2026 3:18 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2026 11:45 am

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2026 9:01 am ᵻˈnejbl / ˌʌnˈejbl

Yeah, that's what I have (and my vowel in unable definitely not a schwa but rather a secondarily-stressed unrounded back vowel).

I'd accept that for a phonemic representation. Phonetically I think there's a lot more wiggle room, and we always have to be careful about the difference in saying a word in isolation, and in fast speech.

A key thing is that in many dialects STRUT is a near-open unrounded central vowel, so it is phonetically much more similar to a schwa than my STRUT, which is closer to my THOUGHT* (but differs in rounding and is closer).

* except before /d/, where it is a near-open unrounded central vowel