1 6 7 8 9 10  12 13
comma

No comma is required.

You use "disgraceful poor grammar"? Your "disgracefully poor" grammar would be fine, but in this case you're using "disgraceful, poor" grammar.

John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.
At least I got all of my questions answered. I'm a better man for having "met" you. It IS an interesting group, though. Thanks to all.

Don't slam the door on your way out.

John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Not to mention "often" and "interesting"? Ever hear anyone pronounce the latter with four full syllables?

I do.

That's it for you, John. Turn in your AUE mug and your OneLook ID card. We'll hold the drumming-out on Friday.

Bob Lieblich
Good to see you back
That's it for you, John. Turn in your AUE mug and your OneLook ID card. We'll hold the drumming-out on Friday.

Oooer. I was about to say the same, but perhaps I shan't now! I'm a native English (for certain values of 'English') speaker, but I'm not from the UK *or* the US. I would certainly pronounce both words with their full complement of syllables, or perhaps I would abridge 'interesting' to 'int'resting' if I was in a hurry.

I take it you expect the pronunciations to be 'offin' and 'innarestin'? I always hit t's, and I think most of my compatriots would too. I'm no sociolinguist though; even here 'data' is not the plural of 'anecdote'.

(I was hoping that one of you would be able to deduct my origin from my writing style - "elementary, my dear Watson, from the calluses on his hands I knew he had worked as a seaman for many years..." - but Google Groups has quite spoiled the surprise)
Lyall Morrison
I take it you expect the pronunciations to be 'offin' and 'innarestin'?

Not so for the latter your version still has four syllables. The standard pronunciation of the word is "INtristing."
I always hit t's, and I think most of my compatriots would too.

No quarrel there. It's that extra syllable between T and R to which I object. I base this objection on usage and suggest you consult dictionaries if you disagree.

Bob Lieblich
Verry interethting
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
The standard pronunciation of the word is "INtristing."

I don't normally comment on pronunciation matters, believing that pronunciation is between a man, his God, and his audience, but this issue of what we might call (and doubtless experts have precise terms for the calling) condensed versus expanded pronunciation interests me. (IN'-TER-ESTS or IN'-TRESTS?)
I agree that the condensed forms for many words are "standard", if we take that to mean both prevalent and unexceptionable. What I wonder is whether the expanded form would be found off-putting by any largely civilized audience. If one were to say to such an audience

I find that conclusion both IN'-TER-EST-ING and COM'-FOR-TUH-BUL.

would it engender any cervical damage? Or even any superciliating?(1)
I tend toward doubt. I myself try, with mixed results, to keep to the fuller forms, chiefly owing to a belief that they are simply easier to make out if the environment is less than ideal for speech (and if it isn't habit, we don't do it when we need to save in grotesquely needful cases like shouting).
(1) c.f. contemporary thread "Parse "sooner".
I take it you expect the pronunciations to be 'offin' and 'innarestin'?

Not so for the latter your version still has four syllables. The standard pronunciation of the word is "INtristing."

INtr e sting, Shirley?
Nonetheless, I believe always I pronounce all four syllables, though that between the 't' and the 'r' may be something of a /schwa/.
It's that extra syllable between T and R to which I object.

You object to it, or you object to the notion that people actually pronounce it?
Cheers,
Daniel.
On what basis? Are you unacquainted with comparative grammar? The constructions are identically parallel.

Then why don't English dependent clauses end with the verb form?

Because they don't. The things that are parallel in German and English are exactly parallel; where they differ, the difference are often large. It's just the way it is.
Can you not see how 'must'/'m=FC=DFen', 'can'/'kann', 'may'/'m=F6gen', etc. behave identically in the two languages?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal verb
can k=F6nnen kunnen
shall sollen zullen
will wollen willen
must m=FCssen moeten
may m=F6gen mogen
dare d=FCrfen
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Then why don't English dependent clauses end with the verb form?

Because they don't. The things that are parallel in German and English are exactly parallel; where they differ, the difference are often large. It's just the way it is.

And sometimes the differences are small, as when English allows a word or phrase between "to" and an infinitive form but German does not do so in the corresponding structure with "zu."
I wonder how you are able to adhere so inflexibly to such a nonsensical position. Have you actually rationalized yourself into such a corner, or is this a test to see how long you can hold a pose?(1)
Can you not see how 'must'/'müßen', 'can'/'kann', 'may'/'mögen', etc. behave identically in the two languages?

Translate this into German: "He told me that he can speak both English and German fluently." Note the position and word order of "sprechen kann." Tell me how that corresponds to the position and word order of "can speak" in the English version. Explain how that proves that they "behave identically." You're the intellectual whizbang here. Enlighten we ignorami.
(1) If this is still getting past any kill-files, here's why I keep going: I just gotta get the answer to this question. How does he do it? The rest is just embroidery.

Bob Lieblich
EMWTK Enquiring morons want to know
Show more