Thread: A (an) historian

yeah, my dic. was written by brits, so тротуар is defined as "pavement"(at first I thought it was a road, so when I was reading Russian books I couldn't udnesrstand why the characters kept walking in the middle of roads ), and панель is defined as "Wainscotting." Crazy Brits.

Originally Posted by Propp

Originally Posted by woolliamser

Words that had different pronunciation (usually where the stress is) but the same, or similar spelling (HimaLAYa, HimALaya)

Like "sanatorium" and "sanitarium"?
I think "Sanitarium" is so misspelled and incorrectly understood a form, that it is not worth being seriously spoken of.

Sanitarium and sanatorium come from two different Latin words that have the same root (san). Sanatorium is actually the newer of the two words--it's only about 100 years old. And I don't know about the British, but I have never heard an American use the word "sanatorium" in my entire life. I found a medical website that says it was coined in Canada in the early 20th century to refer to tuberculosis hospitals, so people wouldn't confuse them with "sanitariums" (health resorts). Nowadays a sanitarium (in America at least) just means a place for insane people.

British english should be learnt becasue only Americans speak american english, British english is spoken in more places like England, Australia, India, South Africa, New Zealand and so on.

Well, that's only a valid suggestion while these countries remain non-American territories.

Yeah, I think it's time to take over New Zealand. The US has enough oil now; what we need are more sheep.

Уважаемые англоговорящие господа, подскажите, сильно ли отличается речь дикторов CNN и BBC? Времена глаголов они хоть одни и те же используют?

Apart from the accent, there are no big differences. Maybe on CNN, you'll encounter more Christian names ("Yeah, that certainly is true, Bill"), and a lot of "Have a nice day"s.

no, that happens on the BBC too now. "So Andrew, what does this mean for Gordon Brown?"

Originally Posted by Jasper May

Maybe on CNN, you'll encounter more Christian names

I think I vaguely understand what you mean, but can you elaborate a bit?

Originally Posted by roxfan

Originally Posted by Jasper May

Maybe on CNN, you'll encounter more Christian names

I think I vaguely understand what you mean, but can you elaborate a bit?

"Christian name" is another term for someone's given first name, coming, I think, from the fact that once generally everyone got their name at baptism. I think Jasper was saying that CNN anchors might address one another less formally than BBC anchors would.

Yeah, you're right, and it's incredibly annoying. As if they were compensating for lack of knowledge by appearing overly jovial and social. It just seems so pointless, just like saying "John Smith, in front of the houses of Parliament in London, Britain, for CNN International". Gah! We can see what your name is, as the 'anchor' will announce it, and a bar will appear in front of the reporter. The place will be known, as you can see it behind them and the 'anchor' has already announced it. The channel will also be shown in the top right corner of the screen. It's just a way to stretch the report for 5 more glorious self-congratuling seconds. ('Look at me, I'm a big important reporter reporting from a distant and interesting country for a large newscompany.')
And the worst thing is that England is following their example.

Originally Posted by Jasper May

Yeah, you're right, and it's incredibly annoying. As if they were compensating for lack of knowledge by appearing overly jovial and social. It just seems so pointless, just like saying "John Smith, in front of the houses of Parliament in London, Britain, for CNN International". Gah! We can see what your name is, as the 'anchor' will announce it, and a bar will appear in front of the reporter. The place will be known, as you can see it behind them and the 'anchor' has already announced it. The channel will also be shown in the top right corner of the screen. It's just a way to stretch the report for 5 more glorious self-congratuling seconds. ('Look at me, I'm a big important reporter reporting from a distant and interesting country for a large newscompany.')
And the worst thing is that England is following their example.

Having had to do audio and video news reports, I think that particular signoff is a hold-over from radio broadcast news, where you really did have to say it. Now it's just a formal touch. And if they do drag it out longer than necessary, I doubt it's self-congratulation - in many cases, broadcast segments have to be a very specific length of time, and journalists sometimes get creative about stretching things out if they're coming up a bit short. I myself am the master of the dramatic pause.

simply 'An" is pronounce in fron of the word ONLY if the word begins with a vowel.
Ex: an vowel Wrong)
a vowel (correct)
this works in the case of the word hour, only because the 'h' i silent, therefore the beginning word is 'o'

Originally Posted by nikki2028

simply 'An" is pronounce in fron of the word ONLY if the word begins with a vowel.
Ex: an vowel Wrong)
a vowel (correct)
this works in the case of the word hour, only because the 'h' i silent, therefore the beginning word is 'o'

That's exactly how I was taught in school. If a word's first sound (not the first letter) is a consonant, use "a"; if it is a vowel, use "a".

So it was always "an hour", "an heir" but "a history lesson" etc.

And the rules we were taught were disctinctly British; sometimes very obsolete British, at that. For example, we were taught to pronounce "restaurant" as "restrong", to imitate the French nasal sound. Imagine my surprise when I got access to modern English dictionaries, like Longman, Collins Cobuild, English Oxford Dictionary (mind you, all of them British dictionaries) and found out that it is pronounced -- well, as it is pronounced now, ending with "-nt" and not with "ng".

Actually, to quote an overused commercial jingle, "I'm Lovin' It!"

It's nice to see differing parts of the world, and THEIR "take" on American English vs. British English. Where I was raised (at least through 8th grade), we were taught "the Queen's English," so I'm sure I sound pedantic and overeducated. Nothing could be farther from the truth! By senior year in high school, I'd learned the rule: The indefinite article (IA) is always "a," if the first letter following the IA is sounded like a consonant. (A YEAR; A BASEBALL, A HISTORY BUFF,etc.) Conversely (?), if the first letter following the IA isn't sounded, the IA is "an." (AN HOUR; AN HORS D'OEUVRE, AN ITCHY SPOT, etc.)

As for split infinitives, etc., well, let's just not get me started on that whole can of worms. (Learning German as my second language helped me, but more just for parts of speech, and cases.)

I'd love to chat with you all more, if interested.
boisebret@msn.com

Originally Posted by translations.nm.ru

And the rules we were taught were disctinctly British; sometimes very obsolete British, at that. For example, we were taught to pronounce "restaurant" as "restrong", to imitate the French nasal sound. Imagine my surprise when I got access to modern English dictionaries, like Longman, Collins Cobuild, English Oxford Dictionary (mind you, all of them British dictionaries) and found out that it is pronounced -- well, as it is pronounced now, ending with "-nt" and not with "ng".

Actually the French sound is not the same as the English phoneme 'ng', it's more like the 'start' of an 'ng', it shouldn't sound the same at all.. so, sure, it would be rather strange to say it as 'restrong'. If you said it the French way, it wouldn't be a problem at all because most British people would not really pronounce the 't' at the end of the word (I think we have a glottal stop there), at least in casual speech.
I think the main difference between the Brit. English and French pronunciation of 'restaurant' is in the 'r' sounds which are dramatically different.

I was watching Sleepy Hollow which was set at around 1900 I think, and alot of the people still had British accent (it was set in America). Which led me to ponder, how did the americans, and the australians et.c get their different accents? I read one theory that at the time when there was mass emigration to America from Britian, the British accent at the time was like the modern American accent. I also read somewhere else that the American accents are the product of the different nationalities of people. E.g. British, Irish, Dutch and all the other Europeans.

But if the British spoke like that at the time, then if we changed, surely American would have as well. Reminds me a bit of "If God made man in his image, then is he black, because humanity originated in Africa?" This doesn't take into account that we are jest as direct descendants of the first humans as the modern Africans.. Sorry, that was a bit irrelevant..ho hum...

Well, my theory is that the Irish habit of pronouncing the short 'o' as an 'aa' has contributed a great deal to the current American accent. And of course, Yiddish and Italian immigrants have more or less singlehandedly formed the Noo Yoik stereotype accent. And I've noticed that when Dutch people speak English, even those trying to learn the British accent (like VM), their accent features a lot of similarities to the American accent.

Oh poor VM! Compared to a Dutchman trying hard to mimic the British accent (which one?). Oh what a blow!

I nearly choked.