Zompist Bboard Again

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 9:00 pm

Secondly, just as these trochees seem to be allowed when required to talk in words of one syllable, are not words whose first syllable is (unstressed) /ə/ also allowed?

I don’t understand this comment. Could you elaborate please?

I presume you are familiar, or at least acquainted, with requests to explain things in words of one syllable. In such cases, the use of these 'sesquisyllabic' trochaic morphemes appears to be acceptable. But there are also simple everyday words like again, about and away which are similarly acceptable when nominally complying with such a request.

Richard W wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 11:50 pm I presume you are familiar, or at least acquainted, with requests to explain things in words of one syllable.

Oddly enough, I actually am not. The first time I remember hearing about such a thing was when I was reading a Wodehouse story a couple of weeks ago, though I wouldn’t be surprised if I’d seen such requests before and had simply forgotten. And yes, when reading the story I was thoroughly confused by the presence of bisyllabic words in the response — I ended up assuming that the responding character was simply ignoring the request, or was taking it figuratively as a request to explain things in ‘simple language’.

In such cases, the use of these 'sesquisyllabic' trochaic morphemes appears to be acceptable. But there are also simple everyday words like again, about and away which are similarly acceptable when nominally complying with such a request.

Looking through Wodehouse again, the bisyllabic words he feels are acceptable—excluding inflected verbs and personal names—include: didn’t, o’clock, before, into, dining-room, along, government, pretty, happen(ing), about, picture, gallery, vicar, organ, because, already, again, after, devil. Most of these are either ‘sesquisyllabic’ or start with (C)ə-, but there’s quite a few exceptions, even including some words with three syllables: into, dining-room, government, gallery.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 12:11 am ... but there’s quite a few exceptions, even including some words with three syllables: into, dining-room, government, gallery.

But with one arguable exception, the morphemes in these words are monosyllabic or 'sesquisyllabic'. How do you feel about the claim that gallery is /ɡælrj̩/?

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 11:35 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 11:34 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 9:00 pm

I’m not quite sure either — it doesn’t tend to precede vowel-initial words: a cuppa, cuppa tea, cuppa coffee. But the non-idiomatic combination cuppa alcohol I would pronounce with a linking-r: [ˌkʰɐpʰəˈɻʷæwkʰəˌhow].

I am amused by the analysis of cuppa as a single word, since at least in NAE /ə/ is an allomorph of of across the board, and not just after cup.

This is the case for me too. But there is evidence that this particular combination has lexicalised — a cuppa (without following noun) is valid for me, while *a cup of is not.

Whereas a cup of without a following NP is ungrammatical to me. (Contrast this with kinda and sorta in their adverbial uses, which are clearly single words based on this criterion.)

Brief question on usage:

Does the phrase "Same to you!" have negative associations for you even when used in neutral or positive contexts? (E.g. "Happy Holidays!" "Same to you!")

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:25 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 12:11 am ... but there’s quite a few exceptions, even including some words with three syllables: into, dining-room, government, gallery.

But with one arguable exception, the morphemes in these words are monosyllabic or 'sesquisyllabic'. How do you feel about the claim that gallery is /ɡælrj̩/?

I feel that it’s wrong — I have [ˈɡæɫəɻʷiː], with a clear second syllable. (Though it could be something like /ˈɡælr̩j̩/, I suppose.)

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:50 pm Brief question on usage:

Does the phrase "Same to you!" have negative associations for you even when used in neutral or positive contexts? (E.g. "Happy Holidays!" "Same to you!")

I would consciously interpret this as having been meant as having neutral or positive connotations in such contexts, but it would still have a sour ring to it nonetheless. I personally would not use it in a neutral or positive context for this reason.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 4:48 pm

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:25 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 12:11 am ... but there’s quite a few exceptions, even including some words with three syllables: into, dining-room, government, gallery.

But with one arguable exception, the morphemes in these words are monosyllabic or 'sesquisyllabic'. How do you feel about the claim that gallery is /ɡælrj̩/?

I feel that it’s wrong — I have [ˈɡæɫəɻʷiː], with a clear second syllable. (Though it could be something like /ˈɡælr̩j̩/, I suppose.)

This would be the trisyllabic [ˈɡ̥ɛːɤ̯ʁ̩ˤːʁˤi(ː)] (corresponding to /ˈɡælr̩j̩/) to me.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:50 pm Brief question on usage:

Does the phrase "Same to you!" have negative associations for you even when used in neutral or positive contexts? (E.g. "Happy Holidays!" "Same to you!")

That sounds absolutely fine to me.

To me the idiomatic positive response in this kind of case would be "you too!" rather than "same to you!", lacking any negative connotations.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:42 pm To me the idiomatic positive response in this kind of case would be "you too!" rather than "same to you!", lacking any negative connotations.

I would say "you too!" as well, though "same to you" doesn't have any negative connotations for me.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 5:28 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 4:55 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 3:04 pm
An alternate analysis, for bradrn's lect, would be that this is simple intrusive /r/, and by analogy, intrusive /l/.

That's not going to affect bird. For words in -r, it depends on whether Brad inserts an r only where there was historically one ("they were angry"), or before any word beginning with a vowel ("I saw a bug" > "I sore a bug").

IIRC Australian English has intrusive /r/; IIRC the only non-rhotic English varieties that lack intrusive /r/ are non-rhotic NAE varieties and South African English.

There are dialects in New England (both rhotic and non-rhotic) with intrusive r. I'm not sure of the rules governing them, though.

Is it "I don't see the point of these movies, but they keep being made", or "I don't see the point of these movies, but they keep getting made"?

The second one feels more like what I would personally use (and what would presumably be thought suitable for written language), but I would consider both grammatical.

Thank you!

How do different poetic meters affect you?

I remember in school being told that iambic or trochaic meter "feels faster," as is easily confirmed when painstakingly clapping out a sonnet. But in real world English, with our stress-timed emphasis, a dactylic or anapestic meter actually goes faster. At the time, the lesson I took from this is "ATAB. Literary analysis is a lie."

But now I wonder what effect meter actually has on the reader. How do different poetic structures make you feel? Does line length matter to you? Do you think slavish dedication to a rhyming scheme is wonderful and uplifting, or is it just for try-hards and dirty limericks?

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:59 am How do different poetic meters affect you?

Iambic pentameter feels "invisible" to me — not in a bad way, but it lets the words, in my mind at least, run on at a comfortable pace. It also sees a lot of usage across different historical periods

Chaucer, c. 1390
In th' olde dayes of the Kyng Arthour,
Of which that Britons speken greet honour...

Shakespeare, c. 1590
When to the sessions of sweet silent thought
I summon up remembrance of things past...

Charlotte Smith, c. 1780
... The sea no more its swelling surge confines,
But o'er the shrinking land sublimely rides...

It also places emphasis on the final syllable, and so the rhyme can possibly freel a bit more pronounced (as opposed to a trochaic or dactyllic metre, where you're rhyming unstressed syllables).

Trochaic metre can feel a bit "faster" because you do start on the stress. Nursery rhymes and cackling incantations in it also often drop off the last unstressed syllable, so you get essentially "troche-trochee-amphibrach", note —

Hickory dickory dock
The mouse ran up the clock

This is probably because trochaic metre in English will tend to rely on difficult-to-perform rime riche; Shakespeare has two lines in trochaic tetrameter at the beginning of the witches' song, then shifts to the trochee-trochee-amphibrach thing that "Hickory Dickory Dock" does:

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and caldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the caldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,

I notice that iambs tend to lend themselves to pentameter, and trochees to tetrameter.

Breaking the metre a little does not have any disorienting effect when I read it — note that the lines from Charlotte Smith are taken from an "Elegiac Sonnet" that is not in perfect iambic pentameter all through:

Press'd by the Moon, mute arbitress of tides, (spondee-iamb, spondee-dibrach-iamb)
While the loud equinox its power combines, (spondee-spondee-iamb-iamb-iamb)
The sea no more its swelling surge confines, (iamb-iamb-iamb-iamb-iamb)
But o'er the shrinking land sublimely rides. (iamb-iamb-iamb-iamb-iamb)

When writing in English specifically, a line of verse will usually, for lack of a better word, "want" to end on a stressed syllable, because this makes it easier for it to rhyme. We already notice how in metrically trochaic lines, ending on an amphibrach rather than two full trochees is common, because English does not rhyme that well when compared with languages with lots of terminal open syllables and more limited vowel inventories.

...[i]n real world English, with our stress-timed emphasis, a dactylic or anapestic meter actually goes faster.

Dactyllic metre is overall rare in English (I had to go digging for examples, and found extremely few), though combinations of Dactyls and Trochees seem to be somewhat more common:

Robert Browning, c. 1845:
"Just for a handful of silver he left us... (dactyl-dactyl-dactyl-trochee)
Found the one gift of which fortune bereft us," (dactyl-dactyl-dactyl-trochee)

Do you think slavish dedication to a rhyming scheme is wonderful and uplifting, or is it just for try-hards and dirty limericks?

"Slavish" dedication, I wouldn't think of as necessary (I think line-final assonance can be just as effective as rhyming, and opens up more possibilities for pairing words unexpectedly, rather than being stuck with the same few true rhymes), but having some sort of patterning, I tend to prefer.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:59 amBut now I wonder what effect meter actually has on the reader. How do different poetic structures make you feel? Does line length matter to you?

I like metre, but not too terribly rigid that it feels monotonic. Like iambic pentameter where the poet allows themself frequent trochee starts and the occasional anapest. Or poems where two metres are used, depending on the stanza or line, as in Sapphic stanzas (which end in a shorter line), or Espronceda's Canción del pirata (which alternates two similar metres every one or two stanzas).

I feel metre adds to the art (because it doesn't feel too natural, so it's removed from usual prose speech), it demonstrates a certain effort in the composition, which is appealing, and the pattern is beautiful like when you look at an abstract decoration with a regular pattern.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:59 amDo you think slavish dedication to a rhyming scheme is wonderful and uplifting, or is it just for try-hards and dirty limericks?

Try-hards, dirty limericks, and rap.

What does "five or so" mean? Does it mean "five or six"? And why did people use "or so" there?

WarpedWartWars wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 7:24 pm What does "five or so" mean? Does it mean "five or six"? And why did people use "or so" there?

The construction "[number] or so" means "about [number]", could be more or could be less by any plausible amount. In the case of "five", you'd expect someone to usually be able to give a certain amount for smaller numbers, so it's most likely that the number is in the range of five-six than the range of four-five, but it doesn't denote a specific set-in-stone range. It depends on the context. The reason why someone would say "five or so" instead of just "five" also depends on the context: it might be that someone is estimating the amount of something they only got a glance of (too fast to count), or trying to remember how many times something occurred and is not sure if they missed one (or more) times.