|
|
|
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:58:38 -0700,
group: uk.culture.language.english
back
what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
Thanks,
Zhengquan
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:58:38 -0700
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
source not re and zource.
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200
author: John of Aix
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
Most people where?
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
They will think you speak well.
--
Blue Sow
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:38:01 +0100
author: Blue Sow
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
> zhengquan wrote:
> > The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> Most people where?
>
> > what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> They will think you speak well.
>
> --
> Blue Sow
The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
the new way.
And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
younger people, though.
That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:08:23 -0700
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan schrieb:
> On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
>>zhengquan wrote:
>>
>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>>
>>Most people where?
>>
>>
>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>>They will think you speak well.
>>
>>--
>>Blue Sow
>
>
> The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> the new way.
>
> And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> younger people, though.
>
> That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:29:23 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 4:29 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> zhengquan schrieb:
>
> > On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
> >>zhengquan wrote:
>
> >>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> >>Most people where?
>
> >>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> >>They will think you speak well.
>
> >>--
> >>Blue Sow
>
> > The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> > other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> > the new way.
>
> > And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> > younger people, though.
>
> > That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> > evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
> My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
> pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
> America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
> but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
> pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Sorry, I made a mistake, Americans pronounce it with the stress on the
first syllable, and with voiceless s. I misremembered.
Zhengquan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:22:26 -0000
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
> Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>
>> zhengquan wrote:
>>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>
>>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>> source not re and zource.
>
> Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
> sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>
> Joachim
On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
"feasible" for me.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:18:49 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
> zhengquan wrote:
>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>
>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
> source not re and zource.
Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Joachim Pense schrieb:
> Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
>
>
>>Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>>
>>
>>>zhengquan wrote:
>>>
>>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>>>one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>>
>>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>>
>>>No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>>>would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>>>source not re and zource.
>>
>>Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
>>sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>>
>>Joachim
>
>
> On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
> "feasible" for me.
>
As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
"feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:11:27 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
> voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
> "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that might
be peculiarly northern.
Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today is
verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention Shifty
Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Paul Burke
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:28 +0100
author: Paul Burke
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Paul Burke
wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> > As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> > with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> > pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> > weird to me.
> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> might be peculiarly northern.
> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
zed for the verb. I'd guess that not only does that principle apply to
many words but that many words - whether nouns or verbs - are actually
pronounced differently depending on context.
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:28:10 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> In article , Paul Burke
> wrote:
>> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
>>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
>>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
>>> weird to me.
>
>> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
>> might be peculiarly northern.
>
>> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
>> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
>> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
>> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
>
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion to use
the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease' with a zed,
either.
--
John Briggs
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:49:23 GMT
author: John Briggs
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess pronunciation every
time.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:24:03 +0100
author: Mike Stevens
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Mike Stevens
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> pronunciation every time.
Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
fingers don't split right.
On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
from that to other English ears.)
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:58:52 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article <nywgi.5357$nE2.1613@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > In article , Paul Burke
> > wrote:
> >> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> >>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> >>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> >>> weird to me.
> >
> >> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> >> might be peculiarly northern.
> >
> >> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the
> >> English language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de
> >> rigeur today is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not
> >> to mention Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
> >
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion
> to use the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease'
> with a zed, either.
Doesn't that depend on which "lease" you're talking about?
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:07:06 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David schrieb:
> In article , Mike Stevens
> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
>>>a zed for the verb.
>
>
>>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
>>pronunciation every time.
>
>
> Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
> fingers don't split right.
>
> On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
> it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
> from that to other English ears.)
>
Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
think it's a regional thing.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:39:57 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Einde O'Callaghan
wrote:
> David schrieb:
> > In article , Mike Stevens
> > wrote:
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> >>>a zed for the verb.
> >
> >
> >>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> >>pronunciation every time.
> >
> >
> > Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be
> > Vulcan: my fingers don't split right.
> >
> > On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've
> > heard it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound
> > different from that to other English ears.)
> >
> Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
> think it's a regional thing.
As can the 's' in the verb "grease" (I refer you to any decent
dictionary).
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:42:34 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
source not re and zource.
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200
author: John of Aix
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
Most people where?
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
They will think you speak well.
--
Blue Sow
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:38:01 +0100
author: Blue Sow
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
> zhengquan wrote:
> > The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> Most people where?
>
> > what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> They will think you speak well.
>
> --
> Blue Sow
The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
the new way.
And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
younger people, though.
That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:08:23 -0700
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan schrieb:
> On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
>>zhengquan wrote:
>>
>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>>
>>Most people where?
>>
>>
>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>>They will think you speak well.
>>
>>--
>>Blue Sow
>
>
> The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> the new way.
>
> And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> younger people, though.
>
> That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:29:23 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 4:29 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> zhengquan schrieb:
>
> > On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
> >>zhengquan wrote:
>
> >>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> >>Most people where?
>
> >>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> >>They will think you speak well.
>
> >>--
> >>Blue Sow
>
> > The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> > other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> > the new way.
>
> > And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> > younger people, though.
>
> > That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> > evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
> My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
> pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
> America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
> but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
> pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Sorry, I made a mistake, Americans pronounce it with the stress on the
first syllable, and with voiceless s. I misremembered.
Zhengquan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:22:26 -0000
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
> Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>
>> zhengquan wrote:
>>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>
>>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>> source not re and zource.
>
> Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
> sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>
> Joachim
On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
"feasible" for me.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:18:49 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
> zhengquan wrote:
>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>
>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
> source not re and zource.
Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Joachim Pense schrieb:
> Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
>
>
>>Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>>
>>
>>>zhengquan wrote:
>>>
>>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>>>one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>>
>>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>>
>>>No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>>>would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>>>source not re and zource.
>>
>>Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
>>sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>>
>>Joachim
>
>
> On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
> "feasible" for me.
>
As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
"feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:11:27 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
> voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
> "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that might
be peculiarly northern.
Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today is
verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention Shifty
Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Paul Burke
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:28 +0100
author: Paul Burke
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Paul Burke
wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> > As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> > with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> > pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> > weird to me.
> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> might be peculiarly northern.
> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
zed for the verb. I'd guess that not only does that principle apply to
many words but that many words - whether nouns or verbs - are actually
pronounced differently depending on context.
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:28:10 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> In article , Paul Burke
> wrote:
>> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
>>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
>>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
>>> weird to me.
>
>> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
>> might be peculiarly northern.
>
>> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
>> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
>> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
>> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
>
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion to use
the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease' with a zed,
either.
--
John Briggs
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:49:23 GMT
author: John Briggs
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess pronunciation every
time.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:24:03 +0100
author: Mike Stevens
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Mike Stevens
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> pronunciation every time.
Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
fingers don't split right.
On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
from that to other English ears.)
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:58:52 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article <nywgi.5357$nE2.1613@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > In article , Paul Burke
> > wrote:
> >> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> >>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> >>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> >>> weird to me.
> >
> >> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> >> might be peculiarly northern.
> >
> >> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the
> >> English language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de
> >> rigeur today is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not
> >> to mention Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
> >
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion
> to use the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease'
> with a zed, either.
Doesn't that depend on which "lease" you're talking about?
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:07:06 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David schrieb:
> In article , Mike Stevens
> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
>>>a zed for the verb.
>
>
>>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
>>pronunciation every time.
>
>
> Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
> fingers don't split right.
>
> On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
> it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
> from that to other English ears.)
>
Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
think it's a regional thing.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:39:57 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Einde O'Callaghan
wrote:
> David schrieb:
> > In article , Mike Stevens
> > wrote:
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> >>>a zed for the verb.
> >
> >
> >>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> >>pronunciation every time.
> >
> >
> > Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be
> > Vulcan: my fingers don't split right.
> >
> > On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've
> > heard it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound
> > different from that to other English ears.)
> >
> Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
> think it's a regional thing.
As can the 's' in the verb "grease" (I refer you to any decent
dictionary).
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:42:34 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
source not re and zource.
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200
author: John of Aix
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
Most people where?
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
They will think you speak well.
--
Blue Sow
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:38:01 +0100
author: Blue Sow
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
> zhengquan wrote:
> > The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> Most people where?
>
> > what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> They will think you speak well.
>
> --
> Blue Sow
The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
the new way.
And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
younger people, though.
That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:08:23 -0700
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan schrieb:
> On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
>>zhengquan wrote:
>>
>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>>
>>Most people where?
>>
>>
>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>>They will think you speak well.
>>
>>--
>>Blue Sow
>
>
> The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> the new way.
>
> And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> younger people, though.
>
> That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:29:23 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 4:29 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> zhengquan schrieb:
>
> > On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
> >>zhengquan wrote:
>
> >>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> >>Most people where?
>
> >>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> >>They will think you speak well.
>
> >>--
> >>Blue Sow
>
> > The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> > other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> > the new way.
>
> > And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> > younger people, though.
>
> > That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> > evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
> My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
> pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
> America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
> but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
> pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Sorry, I made a mistake, Americans pronounce it with the stress on the
first syllable, and with voiceless s. I misremembered.
Zhengquan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:22:26 -0000
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
> Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>
>> zhengquan wrote:
>>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>
>>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>> source not re and zource.
>
> Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
> sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>
> Joachim
On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
"feasible" for me.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:18:49 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
> zhengquan wrote:
>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>
>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
> source not re and zource.
Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Joachim Pense schrieb:
> Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
>
>
>>Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>>
>>
>>>zhengquan wrote:
>>>
>>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>>>one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>>
>>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>>
>>>No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>>>would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>>>source not re and zource.
>>
>>Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
>>sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>>
>>Joachim
>
>
> On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
> "feasible" for me.
>
As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
"feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:11:27 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
> voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
> "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that might
be peculiarly northern.
Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today is
verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention Shifty
Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Paul Burke
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:28 +0100
author: Paul Burke
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Paul Burke
wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> > As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> > with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> > pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> > weird to me.
> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> might be peculiarly northern.
> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
zed for the verb. I'd guess that not only does that principle apply to
many words but that many words - whether nouns or verbs - are actually
pronounced differently depending on context.
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:28:10 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> In article , Paul Burke
> wrote:
>> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
>>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
>>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
>>> weird to me.
>
>> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
>> might be peculiarly northern.
>
>> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
>> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
>> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
>> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
>
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion to use
the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease' with a zed,
either.
--
John Briggs
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:49:23 GMT
author: John Briggs
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess pronunciation every
time.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:24:03 +0100
author: Mike Stevens
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Mike Stevens
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> pronunciation every time.
Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
fingers don't split right.
On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
from that to other English ears.)
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:58:52 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article <nywgi.5357$nE2.1613@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > In article , Paul Burke
> > wrote:
> >> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> >>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> >>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> >>> weird to me.
> >
> >> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> >> might be peculiarly northern.
> >
> >> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the
> >> English language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de
> >> rigeur today is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not
> >> to mention Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
> >
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion
> to use the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease'
> with a zed, either.
Doesn't that depend on which "lease" you're talking about?
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:07:06 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David schrieb:
> In article , Mike Stevens
> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
>>>a zed for the verb.
>
>
>>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
>>pronunciation every time.
>
>
> Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
> fingers don't split right.
>
> On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
> it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
> from that to other English ears.)
>
Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
think it's a regional thing.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:39:57 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Einde O'Callaghan
wrote:
> David schrieb:
> > In article , Mike Stevens
> > wrote:
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> >>>a zed for the verb.
> >
> >
> >>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> >>pronunciation every time.
> >
> >
> > Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be
> > Vulcan: my fingers don't split right.
> >
> > On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've
> > heard it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound
> > different from that to other English ears.)
> >
> Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
> think it's a regional thing.
As can the 's' in the verb "grease" (I refer you to any decent
dictionary).
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:42:34 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
source not re and zource.
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200
author: John of Aix
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
Most people where?
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
They will think you speak well.
--
Blue Sow
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:38:01 +0100
author: Blue Sow
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
> zhengquan wrote:
> > The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> Most people where?
>
> > what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> They will think you speak well.
>
> --
> Blue Sow
The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
the new way.
And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
younger people, though.
That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:08:23 -0700
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan schrieb:
> On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
>>zhengquan wrote:
>>
>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>>
>>Most people where?
>>
>>
>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>>They will think you speak well.
>>
>>--
>>Blue Sow
>
>
> The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> the new way.
>
> And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> younger people, though.
>
> That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:29:23 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 4:29 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> zhengquan schrieb:
>
> > On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
> >>zhengquan wrote:
>
> >>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> >>Most people where?
>
> >>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> >>They will think you speak well.
>
> >>--
> >>Blue Sow
>
> > The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> > other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> > the new way.
>
> > And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> > younger people, though.
>
> > That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> > evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
> My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
> pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
> America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
> but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
> pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Sorry, I made a mistake, Americans pronounce it with the stress on the
first syllable, and with voiceless s. I misremembered.
Zhengquan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:22:26 -0000
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
> Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>
>> zhengquan wrote:
>>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>
>>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>> source not re and zource.
>
> Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
> sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>
> Joachim
On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
"feasible" for me.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:18:49 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
> zhengquan wrote:
>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>
>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
> source not re and zource.
Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Joachim Pense schrieb:
> Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
>
>
>>Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>>
>>
>>>zhengquan wrote:
>>>
>>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>>>one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>>
>>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>>
>>>No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>>>would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>>>source not re and zource.
>>
>>Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
>>sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>>
>>Joachim
>
>
> On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
> "feasible" for me.
>
As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
"feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:11:27 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
> voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
> "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that might
be peculiarly northern.
Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today is
verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention Shifty
Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Paul Burke
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:28 +0100
author: Paul Burke
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Paul Burke
wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> > As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> > with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> > pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> > weird to me.
> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> might be peculiarly northern.
> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
zed for the verb. I'd guess that not only does that principle apply to
many words but that many words - whether nouns or verbs - are actually
pronounced differently depending on context.
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:28:10 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> In article , Paul Burke
> wrote:
>> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
>>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
>>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
>>> weird to me.
>
>> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
>> might be peculiarly northern.
>
>> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
>> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
>> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
>> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
>
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion to use
the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease' with a zed,
either.
--
John Briggs
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:49:23 GMT
author: John Briggs
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess pronunciation every
time.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:24:03 +0100
author: Mike Stevens
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Mike Stevens
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> pronunciation every time.
Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
fingers don't split right.
On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
from that to other English ears.)
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:58:52 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article <nywgi.5357$nE2.1613@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > In article , Paul Burke
> > wrote:
> >> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> >>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> >>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> >>> weird to me.
> >
> >> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> >> might be peculiarly northern.
> >
> >> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the
> >> English language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de
> >> rigeur today is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not
> >> to mention Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
> >
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion
> to use the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease'
> with a zed, either.
Doesn't that depend on which "lease" you're talking about?
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:07:06 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David schrieb:
> In article , Mike Stevens
> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
>>>a zed for the verb.
>
>
>>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
>>pronunciation every time.
>
>
> Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
> fingers don't split right.
>
> On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
> it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
> from that to other English ears.)
>
Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
think it's a regional thing.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:39:57 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Einde O'Callaghan
wrote:
> David schrieb:
> > In article , Mike Stevens
> > wrote:
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> >>>a zed for the verb.
> >
> >
> >>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> >>pronunciation every time.
> >
> >
> > Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be
> > Vulcan: my fingers don't split right.
> >
> > On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've
> > heard it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound
> > different from that to other English ears.)
> >
> Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
> think it's a regional thing.
As can the 's' in the verb "grease" (I refer you to any decent
dictionary).
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:42:34 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
source not re and zource.
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200
author: John of Aix
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
Most people where?
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
They will think you speak well.
--
Blue Sow
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:38:01 +0100
author: Blue Sow
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
> zhengquan wrote:
> > The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> Most people where?
>
> > what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> They will think you speak well.
>
> --
> Blue Sow
The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
the new way.
And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
younger people, though.
That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:08:23 -0700
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan schrieb:
> On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
>>zhengquan wrote:
>>
>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>>
>>Most people where?
>>
>>
>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>>They will think you speak well.
>>
>>--
>>Blue Sow
>
>
> The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> the new way.
>
> And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> younger people, though.
>
> That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:29:23 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 4:29 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> zhengquan schrieb:
>
> > On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
> >>zhengquan wrote:
>
> >>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> >>Most people where?
>
> >>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> >>They will think you speak well.
>
> >>--
> >>Blue Sow
>
> > The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> > other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> > the new way.
>
> > And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> > younger people, though.
>
> > That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> > evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
> My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
> pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
> America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
> but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
> pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Sorry, I made a mistake, Americans pronounce it with the stress on the
first syllable, and with voiceless s. I misremembered.
Zhengquan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:22:26 -0000
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
> Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>
>> zhengquan wrote:
>>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>
>>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>> source not re and zource.
>
> Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
> sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>
> Joachim
On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
"feasible" for me.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:18:49 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
> zhengquan wrote:
>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>
>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
> source not re and zource.
Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Joachim Pense schrieb:
> Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
>
>
>>Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>>
>>
>>>zhengquan wrote:
>>>
>>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>>>one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>>
>>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>>
>>>No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>>>would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>>>source not re and zource.
>>
>>Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
>>sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>>
>>Joachim
>
>
> On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
> "feasible" for me.
>
As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
"feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:11:27 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
> voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
> "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that might
be peculiarly northern.
Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today is
verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention Shifty
Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Paul Burke
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:28 +0100
author: Paul Burke
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Paul Burke
wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> > As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> > with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> > pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> > weird to me.
> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> might be peculiarly northern.
> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
zed for the verb. I'd guess that not only does that principle apply to
many words but that many words - whether nouns or verbs - are actually
pronounced differently depending on context.
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:28:10 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> In article , Paul Burke
> wrote:
>> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
>>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
>>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
>>> weird to me.
>
>> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
>> might be peculiarly northern.
>
>> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
>> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
>> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
>> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
>
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion to use
the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease' with a zed,
either.
--
John Briggs
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:49:23 GMT
author: John Briggs
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess pronunciation every
time.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:24:03 +0100
author: Mike Stevens
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Mike Stevens
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> pronunciation every time.
Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
fingers don't split right.
On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
from that to other English ears.)
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:58:52 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article <nywgi.5357$nE2.1613@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > In article , Paul Burke
> > wrote:
> >> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> >>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> >>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> >>> weird to me.
> >
> >> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> >> might be peculiarly northern.
> >
> >> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the
> >> English language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de
> >> rigeur today is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not
> >> to mention Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
> >
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion
> to use the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease'
> with a zed, either.
Doesn't that depend on which "lease" you're talking about?
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:07:06 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David schrieb:
> In article , Mike Stevens
> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
>>>a zed for the verb.
>
>
>>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
>>pronunciation every time.
>
>
> Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
> fingers don't split right.
>
> On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
> it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
> from that to other English ears.)
>
Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
think it's a regional thing.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:39:57 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Einde O'Callaghan
wrote:
> David schrieb:
> > In article , Mike Stevens
> > wrote:
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> >>>a zed for the verb.
> >
> >
> >>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> >>pronunciation every time.
> >
> >
> > Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be
> > Vulcan: my fingers don't split right.
> >
> > On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've
> > heard it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound
> > different from that to other English ears.)
> >
> Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
> think it's a regional thing.
As can the 's' in the verb "grease" (I refer you to any decent
dictionary).
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:42:34 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
source not re and zource.
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200
author: John of Aix
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
Most people where?
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
They will think you speak well.
--
Blue Sow
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:38:01 +0100
author: Blue Sow
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
> zhengquan wrote:
> > The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> Most people where?
>
> > what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> They will think you speak well.
>
> --
> Blue Sow
The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
the new way.
And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
younger people, though.
That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:08:23 -0700
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan schrieb:
> On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
>>zhengquan wrote:
>>
>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>>
>>Most people where?
>>
>>
>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>>They will think you speak well.
>>
>>--
>>Blue Sow
>
>
> The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> the new way.
>
> And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> younger people, though.
>
> That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:29:23 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 4:29 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> zhengquan schrieb:
>
> > On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
> >>zhengquan wrote:
>
> >>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> >>Most people where?
>
> >>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> >>They will think you speak well.
>
> >>--
> >>Blue Sow
>
> > The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> > other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> > the new way.
>
> > And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> > younger people, though.
>
> > That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> > evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
> My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
> pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
> America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
> but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
> pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Sorry, I made a mistake, Americans pronounce it with the stress on the
first syllable, and with voiceless s. I misremembered.
Zhengquan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:22:26 -0000
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
> Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>
>> zhengquan wrote:
>>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>
>>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>> source not re and zource.
>
> Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
> sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>
> Joachim
On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
"feasible" for me.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:18:49 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
> zhengquan wrote:
>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>
>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
> source not re and zource.
Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Joachim Pense schrieb:
> Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
>
>
>>Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>>
>>
>>>zhengquan wrote:
>>>
>>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>>>one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>>
>>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>>
>>>No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>>>would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>>>source not re and zource.
>>
>>Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
>>sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>>
>>Joachim
>
>
> On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
> "feasible" for me.
>
As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
"feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:11:27 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
> voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
> "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that might
be peculiarly northern.
Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today is
verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention Shifty
Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Paul Burke
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:28 +0100
author: Paul Burke
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Paul Burke
wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> > As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> > with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> > pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> > weird to me.
> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> might be peculiarly northern.
> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
zed for the verb. I'd guess that not only does that principle apply to
many words but that many words - whether nouns or verbs - are actually
pronounced differently depending on context.
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:28:10 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> In article , Paul Burke
> wrote:
>> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
>>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
>>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
>>> weird to me.
>
>> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
>> might be peculiarly northern.
>
>> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
>> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
>> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
>> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
>
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion to use
the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease' with a zed,
either.
--
John Briggs
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:49:23 GMT
author: John Briggs
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess pronunciation every
time.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:24:03 +0100
author: Mike Stevens
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Mike Stevens
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> pronunciation every time.
Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
fingers don't split right.
On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
from that to other English ears.)
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:58:52 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article <nywgi.5357$nE2.1613@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > In article , Paul Burke
> > wrote:
> >> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> >>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> >>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> >>> weird to me.
> >
> >> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> >> might be peculiarly northern.
> >
> >> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the
> >> English language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de
> >> rigeur today is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not
> >> to mention Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
> >
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion
> to use the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease'
> with a zed, either.
Doesn't that depend on which "lease" you're talking about?
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:07:06 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David schrieb:
> In article , Mike Stevens
> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
>>>a zed for the verb.
>
>
>>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
>>pronunciation every time.
>
>
> Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
> fingers don't split right.
>
> On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
> it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
> from that to other English ears.)
>
Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
think it's a regional thing.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:39:57 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Einde O'Callaghan
wrote:
> David schrieb:
> > In article , Mike Stevens
> > wrote:
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> >>>a zed for the verb.
> >
> >
> >>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> >>pronunciation every time.
> >
> >
> > Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be
> > Vulcan: my fingers don't split right.
> >
> > On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've
> > heard it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound
> > different from that to other English ears.)
> >
> Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
> think it's a regional thing.
As can the 's' in the verb "grease" (I refer you to any decent
dictionary).
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:42:34 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
source not re and zource.
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200
author: John of Aix
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
Most people where?
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
They will think you speak well.
--
Blue Sow
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:38:01 +0100
author: Blue Sow
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
> zhengquan wrote:
> > The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> Most people where?
>
> > what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> They will think you speak well.
>
> --
> Blue Sow
The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
the new way.
And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
younger people, though.
That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:08:23 -0700
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan schrieb:
> On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
>>zhengquan wrote:
>>
>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>>
>>Most people where?
>>
>>
>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>>They will think you speak well.
>>
>>--
>>Blue Sow
>
>
> The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> the new way.
>
> And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> younger people, though.
>
> That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:29:23 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 4:29 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> zhengquan schrieb:
>
> > On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
> >>zhengquan wrote:
>
> >>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> >>Most people where?
>
> >>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> >>They will think you speak well.
>
> >>--
> >>Blue Sow
>
> > The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> > other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> > the new way.
>
> > And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> > younger people, though.
>
> > That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> > evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
> My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
> pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
> America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
> but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
> pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Sorry, I made a mistake, Americans pronounce it with the stress on the
first syllable, and with voiceless s. I misremembered.
Zhengquan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:22:26 -0000
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
> Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>
>> zhengquan wrote:
>>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>
>>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>> source not re and zource.
>
> Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
> sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>
> Joachim
On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
"feasible" for me.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:18:49 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
> zhengquan wrote:
>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>
>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
> source not re and zource.
Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Joachim Pense schrieb:
> Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
>
>
>>Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>>
>>
>>>zhengquan wrote:
>>>
>>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>>>one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>>
>>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>>
>>>No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>>>would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>>>source not re and zource.
>>
>>Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
>>sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>>
>>Joachim
>
>
> On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
> "feasible" for me.
>
As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
"feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:11:27 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
> voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
> "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that might
be peculiarly northern.
Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today is
verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention Shifty
Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Paul Burke
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:28 +0100
author: Paul Burke
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Paul Burke
wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> > As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> > with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> > pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> > weird to me.
> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> might be peculiarly northern.
> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
zed for the verb. I'd guess that not only does that principle apply to
many words but that many words - whether nouns or verbs - are actually
pronounced differently depending on context.
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:28:10 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> In article , Paul Burke
> wrote:
>> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
>>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
>>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
>>> weird to me.
>
>> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
>> might be peculiarly northern.
>
>> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
>> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
>> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
>> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
>
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion to use
the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease' with a zed,
either.
--
John Briggs
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:49:23 GMT
author: John Briggs
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess pronunciation every
time.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:24:03 +0100
author: Mike Stevens
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Mike Stevens
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> pronunciation every time.
Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
fingers don't split right.
On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
from that to other English ears.)
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:58:52 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article <nywgi.5357$nE2.1613@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > In article , Paul Burke
> > wrote:
> >> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> >>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> >>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> >>> weird to me.
> >
> >> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> >> might be peculiarly northern.
> >
> >> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the
> >> English language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de
> >> rigeur today is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not
> >> to mention Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
> >
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion
> to use the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease'
> with a zed, either.
Doesn't that depend on which "lease" you're talking about?
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:07:06 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David schrieb:
> In article , Mike Stevens
> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
>>>a zed for the verb.
>
>
>>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
>>pronunciation every time.
>
>
> Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
> fingers don't split right.
>
> On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
> it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
> from that to other English ears.)
>
Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
think it's a regional thing.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:39:57 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Einde O'Callaghan
wrote:
> David schrieb:
> > In article , Mike Stevens
> > wrote:
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> >>>a zed for the verb.
> >
> >
> >>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> >>pronunciation every time.
> >
> >
> > Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be
> > Vulcan: my fingers don't split right.
> >
> > On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've
> > heard it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound
> > different from that to other English ears.)
> >
> Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
> think it's a regional thing.
As can the 's' in the verb "grease" (I refer you to any decent
dictionary).
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:42:34 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
source not re and zource.
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200
author: John of Aix
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
Most people where?
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
They will think you speak well.
--
Blue Sow
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:38:01 +0100
author: Blue Sow
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
> zhengquan wrote:
> > The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> Most people where?
>
> > what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> They will think you speak well.
>
> --
> Blue Sow
The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
the new way.
And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
younger people, though.
That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:08:23 -0700
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan schrieb:
> On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
>>zhengquan wrote:
>>
>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>>
>>Most people where?
>>
>>
>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>>They will think you speak well.
>>
>>--
>>Blue Sow
>
>
> The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> the new way.
>
> And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> younger people, though.
>
> That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:29:23 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 4:29 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> zhengquan schrieb:
>
> > On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
> >>zhengquan wrote:
>
> >>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> >>Most people where?
>
> >>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> >>They will think you speak well.
>
> >>--
> >>Blue Sow
>
> > The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> > other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> > the new way.
>
> > And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> > younger people, though.
>
> > That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> > evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
> My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
> pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
> America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
> but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
> pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Sorry, I made a mistake, Americans pronounce it with the stress on the
first syllable, and with voiceless s. I misremembered.
Zhengquan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:22:26 -0000
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
> Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>
>> zhengquan wrote:
>>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>
>>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>> source not re and zource.
>
> Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
> sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>
> Joachim
On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
"feasible" for me.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:18:49 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
> zhengquan wrote:
>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>
>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
> source not re and zource.
Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Joachim Pense schrieb:
> Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
>
>
>>Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>>
>>
>>>zhengquan wrote:
>>>
>>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>>>one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>>
>>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>>
>>>No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>>>would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>>>source not re and zource.
>>
>>Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
>>sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>>
>>Joachim
>
>
> On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
> "feasible" for me.
>
As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
"feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:11:27 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
> voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
> "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that might
be peculiarly northern.
Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today is
verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention Shifty
Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Paul Burke
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:28 +0100
author: Paul Burke
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Paul Burke
wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> > As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> > with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> > pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> > weird to me.
> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> might be peculiarly northern.
> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
zed for the verb. I'd guess that not only does that principle apply to
many words but that many words - whether nouns or verbs - are actually
pronounced differently depending on context.
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:28:10 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> In article , Paul Burke
> wrote:
>> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
>>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
>>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
>>> weird to me.
>
>> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
>> might be peculiarly northern.
>
>> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
>> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
>> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
>> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
>
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion to use
the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease' with a zed,
either.
--
John Briggs
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:49:23 GMT
author: John Briggs
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess pronunciation every
time.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:24:03 +0100
author: Mike Stevens
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Mike Stevens
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> pronunciation every time.
Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
fingers don't split right.
On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
from that to other English ears.)
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:58:52 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article <nywgi.5357$nE2.1613@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > In article , Paul Burke
> > wrote:
> >> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> >>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> >>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> >>> weird to me.
> >
> >> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> >> might be peculiarly northern.
> >
> >> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the
> >> English language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de
> >> rigeur today is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not
> >> to mention Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
> >
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion
> to use the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease'
> with a zed, either.
Doesn't that depend on which "lease" you're talking about?
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:07:06 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David schrieb:
> In article , Mike Stevens
> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
>>>a zed for the verb.
>
>
>>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
>>pronunciation every time.
>
>
> Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
> fingers don't split right.
>
> On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
> it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
> from that to other English ears.)
>
Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
think it's a regional thing.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:39:57 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Einde O'Callaghan
wrote:
> David schrieb:
> > In article , Mike Stevens
> > wrote:
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> >>>a zed for the verb.
> >
> >
> >>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> >>pronunciation every time.
> >
> >
> > Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be
> > Vulcan: my fingers don't split right.
> >
> > On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've
> > heard it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound
> > different from that to other English ears.)
> >
> Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
> think it's a regional thing.
As can the 's' in the verb "grease" (I refer you to any decent
dictionary).
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:42:34 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
source not re and zource.
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200
author: John of Aix
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
Most people where?
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
They will think you speak well.
--
Blue Sow
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:38:01 +0100
author: Blue Sow
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
> zhengquan wrote:
> > The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> Most people where?
>
> > what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> They will think you speak well.
>
> --
> Blue Sow
The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
the new way.
And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
younger people, though.
That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:08:23 -0700
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan schrieb:
> On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
>>zhengquan wrote:
>>
>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>>
>>Most people where?
>>
>>
>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>>They will think you speak well.
>>
>>--
>>Blue Sow
>
>
> The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> the new way.
>
> And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> younger people, though.
>
> That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:29:23 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 4:29 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> zhengquan schrieb:
>
> > On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
> >>zhengquan wrote:
>
> >>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> >>Most people where?
>
> >>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> >>They will think you speak well.
>
> >>--
> >>Blue Sow
>
> > The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> > other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> > the new way.
>
> > And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> > younger people, though.
>
> > That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> > evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
> My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
> pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
> America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
> but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
> pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Sorry, I made a mistake, Americans pronounce it with the stress on the
first syllable, and with voiceless s. I misremembered.
Zhengquan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:22:26 -0000
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
> Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>
>> zhengquan wrote:
>>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>
>>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>> source not re and zource.
>
> Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
> sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>
> Joachim
On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
"feasible" for me.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:18:49 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
> zhengquan wrote:
>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>
>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
> source not re and zource.
Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Joachim Pense schrieb:
> Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
>
>
>>Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>>
>>
>>>zhengquan wrote:
>>>
>>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>>>one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>>
>>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>>
>>>No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>>>would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>>>source not re and zource.
>>
>>Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
>>sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>>
>>Joachim
>
>
> On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
> "feasible" for me.
>
As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
"feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:11:27 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
> voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
> "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that might
be peculiarly northern.
Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today is
verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention Shifty
Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Paul Burke
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:28 +0100
author: Paul Burke
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Paul Burke
wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> > As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> > with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> > pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> > weird to me.
> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> might be peculiarly northern.
> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
zed for the verb. I'd guess that not only does that principle apply to
many words but that many words - whether nouns or verbs - are actually
pronounced differently depending on context.
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:28:10 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> In article , Paul Burke
> wrote:
>> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
>>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
>>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
>>> weird to me.
>
>> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
>> might be peculiarly northern.
>
>> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
>> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
>> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
>> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
>
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion to use
the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease' with a zed,
either.
--
John Briggs
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:49:23 GMT
author: John Briggs
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess pronunciation every
time.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:24:03 +0100
author: Mike Stevens
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Mike Stevens
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> pronunciation every time.
Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
fingers don't split right.
On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
from that to other English ears.)
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:58:52 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article <nywgi.5357$nE2.1613@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > In article , Paul Burke
> > wrote:
> >> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> >>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> >>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> >>> weird to me.
> >
> >> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> >> might be peculiarly northern.
> >
> >> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the
> >> English language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de
> >> rigeur today is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not
> >> to mention Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
> >
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion
> to use the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease'
> with a zed, either.
Doesn't that depend on which "lease" you're talking about?
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:07:06 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David schrieb:
> In article , Mike Stevens
> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
>>>a zed for the verb.
>
>
>>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
>>pronunciation every time.
>
>
> Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
> fingers don't split right.
>
> On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
> it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
> from that to other English ears.)
>
Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
think it's a regional thing.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:39:57 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Einde O'Callaghan
wrote:
> David schrieb:
> > In article , Mike Stevens
> > wrote:
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> >>>a zed for the verb.
> >
> >
> >>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> >>pronunciation every time.
> >
> >
> > Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be
> > Vulcan: my fingers don't split right.
> >
> > On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've
> > heard it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound
> > different from that to other English ears.)
> >
> Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
> think it's a regional thing.
As can the 's' in the verb "grease" (I refer you to any decent
dictionary).
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:42:34 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
source not re and zource.
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200
author: John of Aix
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
Most people where?
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
They will think you speak well.
--
Blue Sow
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:38:01 +0100
author: Blue Sow
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
> zhengquan wrote:
> > The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> Most people where?
>
> > what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> They will think you speak well.
>
> --
> Blue Sow
The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
the new way.
And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
younger people, though.
That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:08:23 -0700
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan schrieb:
> On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
>>zhengquan wrote:
>>
>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>>
>>Most people where?
>>
>>
>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>>They will think you speak well.
>>
>>--
>>Blue Sow
>
>
> The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> the new way.
>
> And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> younger people, though.
>
> That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:29:23 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 4:29 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> zhengquan schrieb:
>
> > On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
> >>zhengquan wrote:
>
> >>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> >>Most people where?
>
> >>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> >>They will think you speak well.
>
> >>--
> >>Blue Sow
>
> > The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> > other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> > the new way.
>
> > And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> > younger people, though.
>
> > That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> > evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
> My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
> pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
> America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
> but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
> pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Sorry, I made a mistake, Americans pronounce it with the stress on the
first syllable, and with voiceless s. I misremembered.
Zhengquan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:22:26 -0000
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
> Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>
>> zhengquan wrote:
>>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>
>>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>> source not re and zource.
>
> Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
> sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>
> Joachim
On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
"feasible" for me.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:18:49 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
> zhengquan wrote:
>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>
>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
> source not re and zource.
Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Joachim Pense schrieb:
> Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
>
>
>>Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>>
>>
>>>zhengquan wrote:
>>>
>>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>>>one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>>
>>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>>
>>>No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>>>would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>>>source not re and zource.
>>
>>Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
>>sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>>
>>Joachim
>
>
> On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
> "feasible" for me.
>
As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
"feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:11:27 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
> voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
> "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that might
be peculiarly northern.
Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today is
verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention Shifty
Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Paul Burke
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:28 +0100
author: Paul Burke
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Paul Burke
wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> > As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> > with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> > pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> > weird to me.
> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> might be peculiarly northern.
> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
zed for the verb. I'd guess that not only does that principle apply to
many words but that many words - whether nouns or verbs - are actually
pronounced differently depending on context.
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:28:10 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> In article , Paul Burke
> wrote:
>> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
>>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
>>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
>>> weird to me.
>
>> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
>> might be peculiarly northern.
>
>> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
>> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
>> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
>> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
>
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion to use
the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease' with a zed,
either.
--
John Briggs
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:49:23 GMT
author: John Briggs
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess pronunciation every
time.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:24:03 +0100
author: Mike Stevens
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Mike Stevens
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> pronunciation every time.
Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
fingers don't split right.
On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
from that to other English ears.)
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:58:52 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article <nywgi.5357$nE2.1613@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > In article , Paul Burke
> > wrote:
> >> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> >>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> >>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> >>> weird to me.
> >
> >> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> >> might be peculiarly northern.
> >
> >> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the
> >> English language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de
> >> rigeur today is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not
> >> to mention Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
> >
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion
> to use the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease'
> with a zed, either.
Doesn't that depend on which "lease" you're talking about?
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:07:06 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David schrieb:
> In article , Mike Stevens
> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
>>>a zed for the verb.
>
>
>>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
>>pronunciation every time.
>
>
> Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
> fingers don't split right.
>
> On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
> it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
> from that to other English ears.)
>
Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
think it's a regional thing.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:39:57 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Einde O'Callaghan
wrote:
> David schrieb:
> > In article , Mike Stevens
> > wrote:
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> >>>a zed for the verb.
> >
> >
> >>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> >>pronunciation every time.
> >
> >
> > Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be
> > Vulcan: my fingers don't split right.
> >
> > On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've
> > heard it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound
> > different from that to other English ears.)
> >
> Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
> think it's a regional thing.
As can the 's' in the verb "grease" (I refer you to any decent
dictionary).
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:42:34 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
source not re and zource.
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200
author: John of Aix
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
Most people where?
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
They will think you speak well.
--
Blue Sow
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:38:01 +0100
author: Blue Sow
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
> zhengquan wrote:
> > The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> Most people where?
>
> > what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> They will think you speak well.
>
> --
> Blue Sow
The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
the new way.
And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
younger people, though.
That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:08:23 -0700
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan schrieb:
> On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
>>zhengquan wrote:
>>
>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>>
>>Most people where?
>>
>>
>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>>They will think you speak well.
>>
>>--
>>Blue Sow
>
>
> The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> the new way.
>
> And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> younger people, though.
>
> That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:29:23 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 4:29 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> zhengquan schrieb:
>
> > On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
> >>zhengquan wrote:
>
> >>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> >>Most people where?
>
> >>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> >>They will think you speak well.
>
> >>--
> >>Blue Sow
>
> > The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> > other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> > the new way.
>
> > And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> > younger people, though.
>
> > That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> > evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
> My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
> pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
> America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
> but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
> pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Sorry, I made a mistake, Americans pronounce it with the stress on the
first syllable, and with voiceless s. I misremembered.
Zhengquan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:22:26 -0000
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
> Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>
>> zhengquan wrote:
>>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>
>>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>> source not re and zource.
>
> Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
> sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>
> Joachim
On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
"feasible" for me.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:18:49 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
> zhengquan wrote:
>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>
>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
> source not re and zource.
Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Joachim Pense schrieb:
> Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
>
>
>>Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>>
>>
>>>zhengquan wrote:
>>>
>>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>>>one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>>
>>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>>
>>>No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>>>would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>>>source not re and zource.
>>
>>Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
>>sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>>
>>Joachim
>
>
> On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
> "feasible" for me.
>
As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
"feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:11:27 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
> voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
> "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that might
be peculiarly northern.
Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today is
verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention Shifty
Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Paul Burke
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:28 +0100
author: Paul Burke
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Paul Burke
wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> > As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> > with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> > pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> > weird to me.
> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> might be peculiarly northern.
> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
zed for the verb. I'd guess that not only does that principle apply to
many words but that many words - whether nouns or verbs - are actually
pronounced differently depending on context.
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:28:10 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> In article , Paul Burke
> wrote:
>> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
>>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
>>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
>>> weird to me.
>
>> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
>> might be peculiarly northern.
>
>> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
>> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
>> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
>> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
>
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion to use
the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease' with a zed,
either.
--
John Briggs
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:49:23 GMT
author: John Briggs
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess pronunciation every
time.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:24:03 +0100
author: Mike Stevens
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Mike Stevens
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> pronunciation every time.
Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
fingers don't split right.
On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
from that to other English ears.)
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:58:52 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article <nywgi.5357$nE2.1613@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > In article , Paul Burke
> > wrote:
> >> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> >>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> >>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> >>> weird to me.
> >
> >> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> >> might be peculiarly northern.
> >
> >> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the
> >> English language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de
> >> rigeur today is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not
> >> to mention Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
> >
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion
> to use the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease'
> with a zed, either.
Doesn't that depend on which "lease" you're talking about?
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:07:06 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David schrieb:
> In article , Mike Stevens
> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
>>>a zed for the verb.
>
>
>>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
>>pronunciation every time.
>
>
> Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
> fingers don't split right.
>
> On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
> it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
> from that to other English ears.)
>
Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
think it's a regional thing.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:39:57 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Einde O'Callaghan
wrote:
> David schrieb:
> > In article , Mike Stevens
> > wrote:
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> >>>a zed for the verb.
> >
> >
> >>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> >>pronunciation every time.
> >
> >
> > Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be
> > Vulcan: my fingers don't split right.
> >
> > On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've
> > heard it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound
> > different from that to other English ears.)
> >
> Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
> think it's a regional thing.
As can the 's' in the verb "grease" (I refer you to any decent
dictionary).
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:42:34 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
source not re and zource.
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200
author: John of Aix
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
Most people where?
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
They will think you speak well.
--
Blue Sow
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:38:01 +0100
author: Blue Sow
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
> zhengquan wrote:
> > The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> Most people where?
>
> > what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> They will think you speak well.
>
> --
> Blue Sow
The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
the new way.
And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
younger people, though.
That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:08:23 -0700
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan schrieb:
> On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
>>zhengquan wrote:
>>
>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>>
>>Most people where?
>>
>>
>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>>They will think you speak well.
>>
>>--
>>Blue Sow
>
>
> The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> the new way.
>
> And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> younger people, though.
>
> That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:29:23 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 4:29 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> zhengquan schrieb:
>
> > On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
> >>zhengquan wrote:
>
> >>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> >>Most people where?
>
> >>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> >>They will think you speak well.
>
> >>--
> >>Blue Sow
>
> > The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> > other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> > the new way.
>
> > And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> > younger people, though.
>
> > That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> > evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
> My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
> pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
> America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
> but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
> pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Sorry, I made a mistake, Americans pronounce it with the stress on the
first syllable, and with voiceless s. I misremembered.
Zhengquan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:22:26 -0000
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
> Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>
>> zhengquan wrote:
>>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>
>>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>> source not re and zource.
>
> Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
> sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>
> Joachim
On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
"feasible" for me.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:18:49 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
> zhengquan wrote:
>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>
>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
> source not re and zource.
Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Joachim Pense schrieb:
> Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
>
>
>>Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>>
>>
>>>zhengquan wrote:
>>>
>>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>>>one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>>
>>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>>
>>>No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>>>would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>>>source not re and zource.
>>
>>Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
>>sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>>
>>Joachim
>
>
> On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
> "feasible" for me.
>
As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
"feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:11:27 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
> voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
> "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that might
be peculiarly northern.
Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today is
verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention Shifty
Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Paul Burke
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:28 +0100
author: Paul Burke
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Paul Burke
wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> > As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> > with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> > pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> > weird to me.
> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> might be peculiarly northern.
> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
zed for the verb. I'd guess that not only does that principle apply to
many words but that many words - whether nouns or verbs - are actually
pronounced differently depending on context.
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:28:10 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> In article , Paul Burke
> wrote:
>> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
>>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
>>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
>>> weird to me.
>
>> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
>> might be peculiarly northern.
>
>> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
>> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
>> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
>> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
>
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion to use
the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease' with a zed,
either.
--
John Briggs
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:49:23 GMT
author: John Briggs
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess pronunciation every
time.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:24:03 +0100
author: Mike Stevens
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Mike Stevens
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> pronunciation every time.
Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
fingers don't split right.
On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
from that to other English ears.)
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:58:52 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article <nywgi.5357$nE2.1613@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > In article , Paul Burke
> > wrote:
> >> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> >>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> >>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> >>> weird to me.
> >
> >> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> >> might be peculiarly northern.
> >
> >> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the
> >> English language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de
> >> rigeur today is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not
> >> to mention Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
> >
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion
> to use the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease'
> with a zed, either.
Doesn't that depend on which "lease" you're talking about?
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:07:06 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David schrieb:
> In article , Mike Stevens
> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
>>>a zed for the verb.
>
>
>>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
>>pronunciation every time.
>
>
> Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
> fingers don't split right.
>
> On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
> it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
> from that to other English ears.)
>
Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
think it's a regional thing.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:39:57 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Einde O'Callaghan
wrote:
> David schrieb:
> > In article , Mike Stevens
> > wrote:
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> >>>a zed for the verb.
> >
> >
> >>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> >>pronunciation every time.
> >
> >
> > Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be
> > Vulcan: my fingers don't split right.
> >
> > On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've
> > heard it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound
> > different from that to other English ears.)
> >
> Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
> think it's a regional thing.
As can the 's' in the verb "grease" (I refer you to any decent
dictionary).
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:42:34 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
source not re and zource.
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200
author: John of Aix
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
Most people where?
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
They will think you speak well.
--
Blue Sow
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:38:01 +0100
author: Blue Sow
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
> zhengquan wrote:
> > The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> Most people where?
>
> > what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> They will think you speak well.
>
> --
> Blue Sow
The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
the new way.
And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
younger people, though.
That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:08:23 -0700
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan schrieb:
> On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
>>zhengquan wrote:
>>
>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>>
>>Most people where?
>>
>>
>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>>They will think you speak well.
>>
>>--
>>Blue Sow
>
>
> The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> the new way.
>
> And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> younger people, though.
>
> That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:29:23 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 4:29 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> zhengquan schrieb:
>
> > On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
> >>zhengquan wrote:
>
> >>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> >>Most people where?
>
> >>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> >>They will think you speak well.
>
> >>--
> >>Blue Sow
>
> > The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> > other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> > the new way.
>
> > And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> > younger people, though.
>
> > That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> > evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
> My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
> pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
> America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
> but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
> pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Sorry, I made a mistake, Americans pronounce it with the stress on the
first syllable, and with voiceless s. I misremembered.
Zhengquan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:22:26 -0000
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
> Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>
>> zhengquan wrote:
>>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>
>>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>> source not re and zource.
>
> Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
> sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>
> Joachim
On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
"feasible" for me.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:18:49 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
> zhengquan wrote:
>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>
>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
> source not re and zource.
Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Joachim Pense schrieb:
> Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
>
>
>>Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>>
>>
>>>zhengquan wrote:
>>>
>>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>>>one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>>
>>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>>
>>>No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>>>would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>>>source not re and zource.
>>
>>Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
>>sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>>
>>Joachim
>
>
> On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
> "feasible" for me.
>
As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
"feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:11:27 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
> voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
> "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that might
be peculiarly northern.
Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today is
verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention Shifty
Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Paul Burke
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:28 +0100
author: Paul Burke
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Paul Burke
wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> > As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> > with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> > pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> > weird to me.
> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> might be peculiarly northern.
> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
zed for the verb. I'd guess that not only does that principle apply to
many words but that many words - whether nouns or verbs - are actually
pronounced differently depending on context.
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:28:10 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> In article , Paul Burke
> wrote:
>> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
>>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
>>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
>>> weird to me.
>
>> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
>> might be peculiarly northern.
>
>> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
>> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
>> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
>> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
>
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion to use
the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease' with a zed,
either.
--
John Briggs
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:49:23 GMT
author: John Briggs
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess pronunciation every
time.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:24:03 +0100
author: Mike Stevens
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Mike Stevens
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> pronunciation every time.
Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
fingers don't split right.
On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
from that to other English ears.)
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:58:52 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article <nywgi.5357$nE2.1613@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > In article , Paul Burke
> > wrote:
> >> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> >>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> >>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> >>> weird to me.
> >
> >> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> >> might be peculiarly northern.
> >
> >> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the
> >> English language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de
> >> rigeur today is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not
> >> to mention Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
> >
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion
> to use the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease'
> with a zed, either.
Doesn't that depend on which "lease" you're talking about?
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:07:06 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David schrieb:
> In article , Mike Stevens
> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
>>>a zed for the verb.
>
>
>>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
>>pronunciation every time.
>
>
> Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
> fingers don't split right.
>
> On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
> it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
> from that to other English ears.)
>
Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
think it's a regional thing.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:39:57 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Einde O'Callaghan
wrote:
> David schrieb:
> > In article , Mike Stevens
> > wrote:
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> >>>a zed for the verb.
> >
> >
> >>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> >>pronunciation every time.
> >
> >
> > Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be
> > Vulcan: my fingers don't split right.
> >
> > On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've
> > heard it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound
> > different from that to other English ears.)
> >
> Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
> think it's a regional thing.
As can the 's' in the verb "grease" (I refer you to any decent
dictionary).
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:42:34 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
source not re and zource.
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200
author: John of Aix
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan wrote:
> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
Most people where?
> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
They will think you speak well.
--
Blue Sow
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:38:01 +0100
author: Blue Sow
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
> zhengquan wrote:
> > The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> Most people where?
>
> > what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> They will think you speak well.
>
> --
> Blue Sow
The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
the new way.
And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
younger people, though.
That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:08:23 -0700
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
zhengquan schrieb:
> On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
>>zhengquan wrote:
>>
>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>>
>>Most people where?
>>
>>
>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>>They will think you speak well.
>>
>>--
>>Blue Sow
>
>
> The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> the new way.
>
> And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> younger people, though.
>
> That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:29:23 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
On Jun 26, 4:29 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> zhengquan schrieb:
>
> > On Jun 26, 6:38 am, Blue Sow wrote:
>
> >>zhengquan wrote:
>
> >>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people
>
> >>Most people where?
>
> >>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> >>They will think you speak well.
>
> >>--
> >>Blue Sow
>
> > The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary pronounces the new way, and no
> > other alternatives, and American English Dictionaries all pronounce
> > the new way.
>
> > And I heard it pronounced rezources on BBC R4 several times, maybe by
> > younger people, though.
>
> > That is great if s sound is still acceptable in resource. Can the s-z
> > evolution be attributed to Americanism invasion?
>
> My Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives both
> pronunciations, but gives the s pronunciation as the only one used in
> America. The merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations
> but the example used in the WAV file is very definitely the
> pronunciation with the voiceless s <http://m-w.com/dictionary/resource>.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Sorry, I made a mistake, Americans pronounce it with the stress on the
first syllable, and with voiceless s. I misremembered.
Zhengquan
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:22:26 -0000
author: zhengquan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
> Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>
>> zhengquan wrote:
>>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>
>>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>
>> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>> source not re and zource.
>
> Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
> sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>
> Joachim
On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
"feasible" for me.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:18:49 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
> zhengquan wrote:
>> The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>> one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>
>> what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>
> No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
> would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
> source not re and zource.
Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
Joachim
date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200
author: Joachim Pense
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Joachim Pense schrieb:
> Am Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:17:35 +0200 schrieb Joachim Pense:
>
>
>>Am Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:33:38 +0200 schrieb John of Aix:
>>
>>
>>>zhengquan wrote:
>>>
>>>>The s in resource now is pronounced z by most people, but according to
>>>>one of my old dictionaries in the 70s, it is pronounced s.
>>>>
>>>>what if I pronounced in the old way? How will others look at me...
>>>
>>>No but as far as I'm concerned, if you pronounced it the 'new way' I
>>>would. I pronounce it 's' and I think that is how it should be: re and
>>>source not re and zource.
>>
>>Being a German, pronouncing an s between two vowels as a z, this
>>sounds like a German accent, so I rather avoid it.
>>
>>Joachim
>
>
> On second thoughts - I wonder why this doesn't apply to the word
> "feasible" for me.
>
As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
"feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:11:27 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible" with a
> voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed pronouncing
> "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly weird to me.
I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that might
be peculiarly northern.
Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today is
verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention Shifty
Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Paul Burke
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:28 +0100
author: Paul Burke
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Paul Burke
wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> > As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> > with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> > pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> > weird to me.
> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> might be peculiarly northern.
> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
zed for the verb. I'd guess that not only does that principle apply to
many words but that many words - whether nouns or verbs - are actually
pronounced differently depending on context.
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:28:10 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> In article , Paul Burke
> wrote:
>> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
>>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
>>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
>>> weird to me.
>
>> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
>> might be peculiarly northern.
>
>> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the English
>> language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de rigeur today
>> is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not to mention
>> Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
>
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion to use
the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease' with a zed,
either.
--
John Briggs
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:49:23 GMT
author: John Briggs
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David wrote:
> Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with a
> zed for the verb.
Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess pronunciation every
time.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:24:03 +0100
author: Mike Stevens
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Mike Stevens
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> pronunciation every time.
Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
fingers don't split right.
On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
from that to other English ears.)
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:58:52 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article <nywgi.5357$nE2.1613@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
wrote:
> David wrote:
> > In article , Paul Burke
> > wrote:
> >> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >>> As a native English who pronounces both "resource" and "feasible"
> >>> with a voiced "z" neither of these sounds German to me - indeed
> >>> pronouncing "feasible" with a voiceless "s" would sound truly
> >>> weird to me.
> >
> >> I use unvoiced for "resource" and voiced for "feasible", but that
> >> might be peculiarly northern.
> >
> >> Grease and lease (s), but please and tease (z). It's just the
> >> English language, inconsistent and ever- changing. What is de
> >> rigeur today is verboten tomorrow. Perfidious Albion, indeed, not
> >> to mention Shifty Villa and Untrustworthy City.
> >
> > Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> > a zed for the verb.
> Well, I certainly don't pronounce it with a zed (when I have occasion
> to use the word...) And I wouldn't pronounce the verb 'to lease'
> with a zed, either.
Doesn't that depend on which "lease" you're talking about?
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:07:06 +0100
author: David lid
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
David schrieb:
> In article , Mike Stevens
> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
>>>a zed for the verb.
>
>
>>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
>>pronunciation every time.
>
>
> Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be Vulcan: my
> fingers don't split right.
>
> On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've heard
> it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound different
> from that to other English ears.)
>
Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
think it's a regional thing.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:39:57 +0200
author: Einde O'Callaghan
|
Re: what if one's pronounciation sounds archaic?
In article , Einde O'Callaghan
wrote:
> David schrieb:
> > In article , Mike Stevens
> > wrote:
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Grease might well be pronounced with an ess for the noun, but with
> >>>a zed for the verb.
> >
> >
> >>Not in any context I've come across in England. The ess
> >>pronunciation every time.
> >
> >
> > Oh, well. I suppose I mustn't be English after all. Can't be
> > Vulcan: my fingers don't split right.
> >
> > On the other hand, "greasy" often has the zed sound whenever I've
> > heard it on English television or radio. (But I suppose it'll sound
> > different from that to other English ears.)
> >
> Yes, indeed. The "s" in "greasy" can be both voiced and voiceless - I
> think it's a regional thing.
As can the 's' in the verb "grease" (I refer you to any decent
dictionary).
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:42:34 +0100
author: David lid
|
|
|
