Search results for 'tag:Paragraphs tag:Pronunciation' matching tags 'Paragraphs' and 'Pronunciation'

Historic vs. Historical - Nov, 2008

Jadarite — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:34:51 GMT

"historical is connected with history (as a subject or branch of science) e.g. The abbey is a historical monument." - http://www.englishforums.com/English/HistoricOrHistorical/dqwdr/post.htm#331552

I know there are previous threads on here, but either they address pronunciation or don't seem to be clear enough. In the above quote, it seems like a contradiction to me. If historical is used as a subject, then the abbey (probably capitalized?) is more "historic" ("critical, crucial, tragic, of essence"). They wouldn't have created it, in my opinion, if it wasn't important.

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument it notes, "Functional structures made notable by their age, size or historic significance". Then, next paragraph it says, "Monuments are also often designed to convey historical or political information."

So, it seems like it is just a matter of interpretation and intent. I want to introduce "historic(al?)" sites to my classes and was wondering which I should use. I opt for "historic" because I am not choosing any site, but the most well known ones like Eiffel Tower, Pyramids, and Stonehenge. If it were just a statue, then maybe "historical" would fit better.

Re: Message from John Cleese

Anonymous — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 07:57:03 GMT

The response from the United States of America to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Message from Her Majesty the Queen.

   â¢   Let us start with your header, the use of Majesty. Here is how it is derived: After the fall of Rome, Majesty was used to describe a Monarch of the very highest rank - indeed, it was generally applied to God. The title was then also assumed by Monarchs of great powers as an attempt at self-praise and despite a supposed lower royal style as a King or Queen, who would thus often be called "His or Her Royal Majesty." The first English king to be styled Majesty was Henry VIII.
   â¢   We can't stand people that think of themselves as Gods. And technically it would be Goddess in this case. "Goddess" have you even seen a picture of your queen.

To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty
Queen Elizabeth II

In light of your failure in recent years to nominate competent candidates
for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give
notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

   â¢   Yes we sure do elect some bad presidents but that is what you get when you stop inbreeding the "Royal" blood line and end up with nit wits like your son. We like to see change occur every once in awhile. It is expected that we will elect a bad one every now and again but we will just elect another president. You on the other hand are stuck with your nit wits.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties
over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she
does not fancy).

   â¢   "Monarchial duties", What is that? What does she do, exactly? Oh, I forgot. "Nothing" So we will gladly let her do her duties. We just won't pay her unless she does something useful. And it figures that she would not want Kansas, that is where a lot of strong pioneering women come from in our history. Pioneering implies that she must do something.

Your new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a Governor for America
without the need for further elections.
Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.
A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you
noticed.

   â¢   Wow, you are a deluded country. If you have not noticed, "The People" rule here, Congress and the Senate just try to keep us happy so they can keep their jobs. And as for the questionnaire if we are happy, we will not notice. If we are not happy, and we do not have the congress or senate to blame, You Will Notice.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules
are introduced with immediate effect:

(You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

   â¢   So, you think that our authority was conferred to us by you. You gave us the rite to be the United States of America.
   â¢   You should pick up a history book, WE TOOK IT. We will let you know when we want to GIVE it back. Unless you think you can take it back. LOL. Like that would be possible, You can't defend yourselves let alone attack anybody. It might behoove you to remember. The only freedoms you have are the freedoms you can defend. We're Good. How about you?

1.Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be
amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

   â¢   noun, adjective Chiefly British - "We are Not British"

2.The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as "colour", "favour",
"labour" and "neighbour." Likewise, you will learn to spell "doughnut"
without skipping half the letters,? and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced
by the suffix '-ise'.? Generally, you will be expected to raise your
vocabulary to acceptable levels.? (look up "vocabulary").

OK, You are starting to sound like the French. Do you really want to be associated with the French?

3.Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such
as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of
communication. There is no such thing as US English. We will let ***
know on your behalf. The *** spell-checker will be adjusted to take
into account the reinstated letter "u" and the elimination of -ize.

   â¢   You still using Microsoft, we moved on to Apple, Linux, etc... And using "like" and "you know" is extremely efficient to educated people. For example; The British are becoming "like" the French. And that implies, "You know".
   â¢   See rather than write paragraphs the thought was expressed in a simple statement.

4.July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

   â¢   What, is it to embarrassing for you. I think we will keep it, unless you can take it. LOL

5.You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or
therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows
that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used
for
shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or
speaking to a therapist then you're not ready to shoot grouse.

   â¢   Nice try, but we can still kick your butts without the guns. They call our lawyers, sharks, for a reason. They eat their prey, go ahead take them on. Our therapists make them feel better after kicking your butts. And as far as only shooting grouse. If you didn't already kill every other animal in the forests that you no longer have, you might actually be able to go hunting. When is the last time you saw a deer in the woods in your country?

6.Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more
dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you
wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

   â¢   A vegetable peeler will be just fine. By the way do you grow potatoes, carrots, or anything that requires a vegetable peeler. Didn't think so, you have to "farm" for that. And that is just so beneath you. Just keep buying our food.

7.All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start
driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will
go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion
tables.
Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense
of humour.

   â¢   Oh my God(Majesty), you are using that to better us. No wonder you lost your kingdom. Oh we have a "horse" if you want to sell your kingdom. We might even give you two horses.
   â¢   And we understand the British sense of humor. To laugh you must smile, to smile you must have nice "Teeth". "You Know"

8.The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been
calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.

   â¢   Jealous? Remember that whole "No taxation without representation" thing. You should look into it.

9.You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries
are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips
are
properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and
dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

   â¢   For someone who "used" to have India, you think that you might have learned something about spices. All you got out of that era was vinegar. Come on, go through the Chunnel to France and start learning how to cook. If we take any criticism about our food it will have to come from France.

10.The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually
beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as
beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred
to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable as they are pound for
pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the
beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for
them.
American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that
all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

   â¢   Ok, Our beer sucks but if we are going to take criticism about it, Germany will have to do it.

11.Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good
guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English
characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt English dialogue in "Four
Weddings and a Funeral" was an experience akin to having one's ears removed
with a cheese grater.

   â¢   Stick to Documentaries, your country is incapable of producing entertainment movies. You don't laugh, you don't cry, you don't feel, and you think that you can entertain a populace. It would be "akin" to watching black and white, silent movies. Again, go to France, India, Germany, even Japan. But in the end, I think it would be best if you just make Documentaries.

12.You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of
proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in
time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American
football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or
wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Don't try rugby -
the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.

   â¢   You just don't get entertainment. Yep, we Americans are going to go nuts over watching guys in shorts run around the field for 3 hours and maybe make a score. There might even be an upset match of 2-1. The excitement of it all has me watering at the mouth. And when we are done being thrilled by the game we can switch the channel to watch a bunch of guys piled on top of each other move around on the ground for another three hours. Look up sarcasm in the Oxford English dictionary.
   â¢   Don't worry though, an american can fix it. In soccer, you need to have more excitement. Switch the goalie to a girl and after each successful goal, that goalie must remove an article of clothing. No more of those 1-0 matches, from my figuring almost all matches will be, 10-9 or 10-8. Rugby is easy, just switch to girls, we will never turn the channel.

13.Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host
an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of
America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your
borders, your error is under standable. You will learn cricket, and we will
let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their
deliveries.

   â¢   First get your facts straight, if you learned to do proper research, you would know that Toronto, as in the Toronto Blue Jays, is not with in our countries borders.
   â¢   Second, of course we know their is a world outside of our borders, we supply it with food, we keep it employed by buying its products, and we get a laugh at them when they try and criticize us.

14.You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

   â¢   Hell, we thought you did it. Come on you can tell us.

15.An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's
Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies
due (backdated to 1776).

   â¢   Ok, but you must pay all our Social Security benefits, Welfare Benefits, Wic Benefits, and government subsidies back dated to 1776. Want to call that one even? Else, you might owe us some money. We will send the lawyers over.

16.Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups, with saucers,
and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus
strawberries (with cream) when in season.

   â¢   Ok that confirms it. You are pansies.

God Save the Queen!

   â¢   If you weren't paying attention, according to you, God is the Queen. Let her save herself. But if she did that you would have to call her an American.

PS: Go ahead and share this with your friends in the USA (those with a good
sense of humour and NOT humor.)

   â¢   PS. Go ahead and share this with your friends in the UK (those with a good sense of humor. oops my mistake, there are none) I would go on but, "You Know"

Re: How to pronounce often?

Anonymous — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:46:01 GMT

Dear Howard Leigh Ph.D., If we are going to get into silly mudslinging battles over the word "often" and claiming illigitimacy of posts due to lack of name, qualifications, and misspellings then I suggest that you start with the very word misspelling which contains two of the letter "s". That is, of course, unless you intended to say that the previous poster pelled something incorrectly, but unfortunately I am not the beholder of a Ph.D. and therefore pell as a verb is not in my vocabulary, nor is it in my trusty old Webster's. Again if we follow your rules that misspellings invalidate a post let us return again to your second sentence where you used the contraction for "You are" when I believe you meant to use the posessive form "your", unless you intended to write "yore" and refer to some other ancient post that you believe to be unreliable. Also I should further point out to you that when you spelled "hat" at the beginning of your last paragraph, your word choice does probably contain a "w" at the beginning to make the word "what." But alas, you have a Ph.D. (in some field that you did not mention - grounds for an unreliable post perhaps?) so you were surely aware of these slight misspellings before criticizing those of others. As for me, I happen to pronounce "often" without the "t" because that is how I learned it, but also to keep with pronunciation schemes words like soft - soften, haste - hasten, chaste - chasten, and also hustle, bustle etc. It does make me cringe a little inside when I hear "often" pronounced with the "t," but if, as several have suggested, this pronunciation has resurged as a result of better and broader education and literacy throughout the world, then I believe that coping with the occasional pronunciation with a "t" is something I dearsay I would be happy to accept as a consequence. I apologize for the somewhat pomptuous (yes, with a silent t - props to that comment by the way) nature of this post, but we all should know that advice we receive from the internet on forum websites should be taken with a grain of salt and misspellings and typos are a reality of the high speed electronic age. Cheers, Peter Broch (sans Ph.D.)

Re: Plural of s = s'es?

Pter — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:43:31 GMT

Yoong Liat
2a. There are two s's in the sentence. (The modern tendency is to add -s to pluralise a word. However, the -'s is still common. I would write s's because ss looks odd.)
2b. There are two PSs in the meeting. (I think either PSs or PS's is fine although I prefer the latter. )

Thanks again, Yoong Liat. I think this is not a matter of right or wrong, but just a matter of style. Many people still use the apostrophe. In fact, if the abbreviation has to be in lower case (I can't think of such a situation yet), I would also use the apostrophe. Therefore, I would write MPs, but mp's. I won't write mps because the s could be confused as part of the abbreviation.

Yoong Liat
In addition, how should they be pronounced? (Pronounce as in 1a and 1b)

Thanks. That's where I am confused. I thought the pronunciation need to match the spelling and therefore "es". Now I know that this is not necessary. I just checked my pronouncing dictionary and surprised to find that it lists all the pronunciations of the plurals of all the 26 alphabets. The plural of s is s's, and the pronunciation is /esiz/. I should have checked that dictionary earlier.

Yoong Liat
PS I have never seen P.SS. or p.ss. My copy of Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary does not have such an entry nor does any other dictionary I checked. (Maybe yours is not the latest edition.)

Seems that we are talking about different dictionaries instead of different versions. The name on the page you quoted does not have "Webster's". Anyway, why we need a plural for PS? A postscript is a short remark. Although it is possible that the "short" remark is not that short and may have more than one paragraph, it is still one short remark. Two paragraphs don't make it two postscripts. I was told that an additional PS added after the original PS is PPS - Post-Postscript.

How Good or Bad is My Accent?

Lingual Bee — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:25:26 GMT

If you are curious about how others might think of your accent, you can get some feedback from Kantalk.com. At its recording page (http://www.kantalk.com/recording/), you can record a funy paragraph, which is used by linguists to study human accent. After you've done it, others can rate your accent and pronunciation and comment on it. Some native speakers recorded there too. Many interesting accents.

Re: how to pronounce 'sp', 'st' and 'sk' in the middle of the word?

Kooyeen — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:34:55 GMT

Hi, this is interesting, it reminds me of something I read in a book for improving pronunciation (the famous "American Accent Training"). The title of the paragraph is "Spoon or Sboon?"

She (the author) say: "Say spoon. Now say sboon. Hear how they sound the same?" This is similar to your p/b problem. Anyway, I disagree, spoon and sboon sound similar to me, but not the same, and people say spoon, not sboon. She go on saying: "Hear how they sound the same? This is why I'd like you to always convert the preposition to to duh when you are speaking, no matter what comes before it (voiced or unvoiced sound)." I have to disagree again. I don't think to becomes duh after unvoiced consonants. Examples: "Way duh go!" (ok, vowel sound), "I need duh know that" (ok, voiced consonant), "To be or nod duh be" (I don't think so, I think it's simply "To be or not to be"). In the book, however, she explicitly write in the phonetic transcription "T'bee r nah d'bee".

In the end, that paragraph was one the ones I didn't pay too much attention to. But maybe she's right, and I'm just a bad sutdent not willing to listen to teachers

Re: which accent?

Marvin A. — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:52:06 GMT

To tell you the truth, I've never heard any foreigner (unless they learned English when they were very young, or had lived in an English speaking country for at least a decade, and had extensive, and personalized accent coaching) ever be able to pull off either an American or British accent. "British English" and "American English" consist of 3 parts--accent, spelling, and lexicon.

As for accent: when people learn an American accent, they learn what is known as "General American"--an accent based on a generalized Midwestern accent, spoken in the 1950's Narrowly definied, this accent is only spoken by very old speakers (80 year olds) in the Midwestern and Western portions of the US, and in a couple of 90 year olds in Canada. Broadly defined, it is spoken by everyone in the Midlands US, the North Central US (North Dakota and surrounding areas), the Western US, and Western and Central Canada (BC to ON). It is also spoken by many newscasters. If they learn "Received Pronunciation" then they learn sort of the upper-class sounding accent in England, that is considered overly posh to some. Both RP and GA are very much alike, except in the overall place of articulation. As a speaker of North American English, it would be *very* difficult for me to pull of a convincing RP accent. I would need long and intensive accent coaching. Even actors are notorious for doing very lousy RP accents.

There is however something called a Mid-Atlantic accent, which is very easy to do. It sounds exactly like a British RP accent to Americans, and exactly like an American accent to British people. It uses the American vowels and consonants which correspond to British ones, but uses the American place of articulation. If you aren't a native speaker of English, unless you honestly *do* sound like a native speaker, most people won't be able to even tell if you are speaking "American English" or "British English". It just depends on how your own non-native accent compares to an American or British accent. For example, almost every Japanese speaker I've met learned American English, but they sounded like they were speaking "British English". The reason was simply that they could not make the vowel sound that exists in the word "hat", nor could they make even a reasonable approximation of the North American English retroflex final "r". Thus, even though they learned "American English", they sounded just as British as they sounded American. So, they could have just as easily learned RP, and they would have ended up with the same accent. So, unless you really do have a native sounding accent with no interference from your native accent, it is not going to make a bit of difference whether you learn American or British English--and if you are so good at imitating accents (unlikly), you should be able to do them both--certainly better than I, as a North American, can fake an RP accent.

The next aspect is spelling. There's American spelling, British spelling, Canadian spelling, and Australian spelling, and New Zealand spelling. First of all we have to keep in mind that spelling has nothing to do with pronunciation, and the fact that a word spelt in one form of English is pronounced differently in another has nothing to do with spelling. The spellings of words are simply national unofficial norms and customs. There are two categories--high frequency, and low frequency words. You can often read several pages of text and not have a clue as to where it was written based on the spelling. The high frequency words are the most important. The low frequency words are written much less frequently, and thus people hardly notice if there are differences in the spelling, and most people in all of the English speaking countries don't care too terribly much. For example, the word [ mIdiv@l ]. I have a hard time remembering how to spell this word. In American spelling, I believe it's spelled midieval or something like that, and in British spelling, mediaeval. I doubt anyone would really care how you spell it this word, in fact many Americans spell it the British way, because the American version looks ugly. So, as for these types of low-frequency words, it really doesn't matter how you spell them. The high frequency words on the other hand, spelling is much more important.

You have to remember, though that everyone will understand these words just fine whether you use the American, British, Australian, or whatever spelling, it's just that some that have not been exposed to the other form, will consider the other form incorrect--American schoolteachers are a good example of this, and they will usually mark your paper if you use, say a British spelling, to let you know that it's spelled differently in America. Most of them don't really care, actually, they just want to help you. I'd say it's probably the British who are the most uptight about spelling, because they tend not to like Americanisms. Canadian English technically has no "official" spelling. Both American and British spellings are accepted, but even so, there is a general trend in how many people spell words, and thus we can say that there is a distinct spelling. so, anyway the only words that you need to worry about are the high-frequency words (as for the low frequency words, just spell them the British way--Americans really won't care--and if they do, tough.)

If on the other hand, you really want to be consistent and spell everything the American way, just get Microsoft's en-US spell checker. Unlike the Canadian or British one, there is no controversy regarding Microsoft's en-US spell checker, and thus it could be said to be the final authority on American spelling (I'm serious. No American would argue with it.) So, the only important words with varients, are those of the or/our class; the er/re class, and the -ize/-ise class. These are the only ones that will get anyone worked up over.

If I were you, simply consider your audience. If you're writing for a British audience use -our (colour, honour) and -re (centre), and if you're writing primarily for an American audience use -or (color, honor) and -re (center). Truthfully, it's mainly the British people that get emotional about these words, because they don't like to see Americanisms all the time, and Americans usually don't care, they just either haven't seen the British form before and think it's just a misspelling. On those two examples, the current trend in Canadian English is to follow the British spelling (colour, centre). When it comes to a few words in American English, the British spelling is regarded as classier, and thus the following words are often spelled like in British English in the US especially for places: Theatre, Centre, Harbour, and Glamour. Note, it's pretty much only these 4 words especially "Theatre". You'll find about the same number as "Theatres" in the US as you'll find "Theaters". You may find a city "Centre", although it's less common than "Theatre", and many businesses use the word Harbour. "Glamour" is far more glamorous than "Glamor"--in fact I don't think I've seen the word "glamor" very often.

When it comes to -ize/-ise words, I believe -ize is considered correct for all varieties of English. -ise however is quickly gaining ground in the UK, and -ize is sometimes even mistakenly assumed to be an Americanism. Most newspapers and magazines now use -ise, for example. The Oxford English Dictionary still lists the -ize form first. I believe that -ise is more common in Australia and New Zealand. -ize is the only acceptable form in the US and Canada (although -ise is sometimes [rarely] used in Canada--usually by people originally from somewhere else.)

So, anyway, if I were you I'd learn both spelling varients just so you know them--the high frequency words are not at all hard to learn. Just consider your audience when you're writing, and be consistent (I'm not, but I just like to be different, for my own personal entertainment. [Of course I'd never hand in paper to a teacher, or for anything important using an odd concoction of American and British spellings--as people would just think I was a bad speller.]) Do as I say, not as I do )

The third thing to learn is the vocabulary differences. You can also just describe what you are talking about, or try to use alternate words. If I were you, I would simply avoid any deliberate Americanisms, or Canadianisms, or Briticisms, or whatever, or learn all of them.

So, in conclusion, it doesn't matter too terribly much which variety of English you want to learn. I myself, would suggest that you learn both, and what the differences are between them, and as long as you don't overwhelm yourself with the differences (they're fairly small ultimately), if you learn both, you can adapt to the person you are talking to and be more easily understood. If you want to learn a particular one, learn either one, it makes absolutely no difference, because no one will take you for a Englishman or an American, nor will you sound like one or the other to native English speakers. You'll still sound like you're speaking German-English or Italian-English or whatever you are. Until people say you sound like a native speaker, you needn't worry. Besides, if you really want to become very proficient in English, you'll have to live in an English speaking country for a while, and you'll pick up the local accent anyway, which more likely than not will not be Upper RP or conservative General American.

As for speaking in a mix of British and American accents, to tell you the truth, I doubt many native speakers would notice... They'll just be thrilled that you're doing the best you can to try to communicate with them, and as long as they can understand you--and General American and RP are the most easily understood forms of English for native speakers to understand.

(edited to insert paragraphs to make reading easier)

Re: Please check the grammar. Thanks!!

Goodman — Wed, 24 May 2006 19:19:21 GMT

Davidrock65 wrote:

Harrys English has made incredible progress since I started teaching him. His pronunciation is getting better and better. Please have him review the past form of verbs, as I noticed that he had forgot some of them, and read as many as he can, the sentences in the past that he wrote in his homework, in order to familiarize him with the usage of past tense. In terms of most of the children not being able to differentiate between a and e as well as n and ng, I would like to provide some tips:

Could you please run a quick check through it? I have to send this to the parents tomorrow.

Much obliged for your help

I see some structure and punctuation problem with this paragraph. The middle part of the paragraph is running too long, combined with improper punctuation which made it unclear.

Harry's English has made incredible progress since I started teaching him. His pronunciation is getting better and better. Please have him review the past forms of verbs, as I noticed that he had forgot some of them, and read as [much]many as he can, the sentences in the past that he wrote in his homework, in order to familiarize him with the usage of past tense. In terms of most of the [ is this a fact?] children not being able to differentiate between "a" and "e" as well as "n" and "ng", I would like to provide some tips

Re: Received Pronunciation & Mid Atlantic English

Tallulah Tam — Fri, 12 May 2006 14:28:09 GMT

You bring up so many points in your message Colombo. The grammatical points I will leave for someone else to answer since I am not very hot on grammar as you will see from my spat with the Gurus some time ago.

I am quite good at conversation though and would like to hold a discussion with you.

I have chosen to address "poetic licence" from your first paragraph.

I feel that Alan Jay Lerner was not so concerned about his own grammar when he wrote the song, he insults the intelligence of the audience by using the word "hung" incorrectly, especially when putting the words into the mouth of Professor Higgins who as I said, should, and most likely would, have known better. Also the rhyming is bad.

Henry, 'Look at her, a prisoner of the gutter,
Condemned by every syllable she ever uttered.
By law she should be taken out and hung,
For the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue.'

I would modestly suggest:-

Look at her, a prisoner of the gutter,
Condemned by every syllable to utter.
By law she should be taken out to hang
For the cold-blooded murder of the English twang.

"Going back to the matter of Higgins' beloved Received Pronunciation, I've always wondered whether what we see in "Pygmalion" and "My Fair Lady" is really possible. I'm not thinking of Britons trying to disguise their natural accents, but of foreigners learning their RP so well as to pass for natives."

Personally I DO think such a transformation is possible one only has to witness the transformations of Glynnis Paltrow and Madonna who now speak better English than the English. I am also personally acquainted with a Dutch Professor who speaks perfect English with Received Pronunciation and no trace of a foreign accent. Richard Burton is another example; when once asked how he managed to lose his Welsh accent he replied, "blood, sweat and tears". I don't know how old you are, but perhaps you remember The Jenkins brothers Clive and Roy? British politicians. To hear them speak you would not have believed they were reared in the same household. Clive had a very thick Welsh mining community accent but Roy who won a scholarship to Oxford cultivated a Received Pronunciation accent so far back it was almost ridiculous.

"By the way, if I'm not wrong, Rex Harrison is as Scouse as the other Harrison I mentioned above. The only film in which I've heard his real voice is precisely "My Fair Lady", and obviously he needs Received Pronunciation for it. But how did he normally speak? "

My handy encyclopedia is Macmillan's, and it only lists Sir Rex Harrison, (Reginald Carey Harrison) as a British actor, followed by his achievements. It does not mention his place of birth. But actors are usually exceptionally good at mimicry (although Robert Redford refused to learn a British accent for his part in "Out of Africa"). Sir John Mills for instance was never heard speaking in any other accent but what was considered to be a high class English accent, except if the part called for it, such as in "Ryan's Daughter, but someone once commented that his natural accent was quite a strong West Country accent. James Mason is yet another example who killed his Huddersfield accent to play upper class British gentlemen in his films. The first time I heard James Mason speak with a flat accent (in a film) I was quite shocked! As you say, it would have been "a bit shocking" to have heard Rex Harrison speak with a Liverpudlian accent.

Re: Test of spoken english(TSE)

Anonymous — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 06:54:49 GMT

I WILL TAKE IT AT THE SAME DATE IF U ARE NATIVE SPEAKER I CAN GIVE U SOME INFORMATION TRY TO LISTEN TO PRONUNCIATION SITES AND SEARCH FOR THE GRAPH QUESTION ON NET U WILL FIND DETAILS . OPINION QUESTIONS U NEED INTRODUCTION TWO PARAGRAPHS AND CONCLUSION