"Period" : i.e. full stop.
Sigh.
Sigh.
languages
<< Strange, for centuries your people dispensed wisdom to westerners and now here I am, a westerner dispensing wisdom to you.>>
My jaw dropped when I read this nonsense. How in the hell was this cogent to the argument?
Let me make it clear, as I said three months ago, that I am strongly opposed to Brennus being a moderator.
My jaw dropped when I read this nonsense. How in the hell was this cogent to the argument?
Let me make it clear, as I said three months ago, that I am strongly opposed to Brennus being a moderator.
OK...we all speak in one or more of the world's Languages (even in this English Language forum quite frequently).
How familiar are we in the locations of the home bases for everybody's Languages? Not so much the location of all our countries, but the location of various places in those countries on a world map?
There are several separate parts in this link, including the World Map, the Europe Map and the USA map. Choose whichever you fancy, but first click the appropriate entry point, then whichever player numbers you are going for (single in most cases I would guess) then click the appropiate map selection.
Just click on the maps and see how you score for time and accuracy of location and how far out you are in kms ....or even spot on maybe. If you know exactly where Tallinn, Estonia is situated on the map of Europe then you're a star.
http://geosense.net.86.seekdotnet.com/vgeo1/geostart.html
Unless you have loads of time to do this stuff then it can become addictive.
How familiar are we in the locations of the home bases for everybody's Languages? Not so much the location of all our countries, but the location of various places in those countries on a world map?
There are several separate parts in this link, including the World Map, the Europe Map and the USA map. Choose whichever you fancy, but first click the appropriate entry point, then whichever player numbers you are going for (single in most cases I would guess) then click the appropiate map selection.
Just click on the maps and see how you score for time and accuracy of location and how far out you are in kms ....or even spot on maybe. If you know exactly where Tallinn, Estonia is situated on the map of Europe then you're a star.
http://geosense.net.86.seekdotnet.com/vgeo1/geostart.html
Unless you have loads of time to do this stuff then it can become addictive.
Damian, you are a bad, bad man. I have not done any work today since I've seen that site, thanks to you!
Which is easier american english or british english?
well i think american grammar is easier than british one but Americans speak toooooo fast
well i think american grammar is easier than british one but Americans speak toooooo fast
Ur kidding right Larissa. Some of our british accents are so super fast that other Brits can't keep up with them.
If one went up to someone in the street in Britain and pointed to the plate on a vehicle that displays the registration number and asked what it was called, the vast majority of people would say 'number plate'. This is by far the most common term for it.
I really don't know if American English or British English is easier to learn. I would imagine the difference in pronunciation would make it easier for some than others and in any cases the differences are small. The only thing that comes to mind is that the 'o' of British English would seem more orthodox in pronunciation as it resembles the 'o' sounds found in other European languages. To my ears, the American rendition is rather 'a'-like.
I really don't know if American English or British English is easier to learn. I would imagine the difference in pronunciation would make it easier for some than others and in any cases the differences are small. The only thing that comes to mind is that the 'o' of British English would seem more orthodox in pronunciation as it resembles the 'o' sounds found in other European languages. To my ears, the American rendition is rather 'a'-like.
I've always thought that.....that the American "o" often seems to sound more like an "a". eg "dog" seems more like "dag". That's obviously because of the drawling nature of the accent.
<<I really don't know if American English or British English is easier to learn. I would imagine the difference in pronunciation would make it easier for some than others and in any cases the differences are small. The only thing that comes to mind is that the 'o' of British English would seem more orthodox in pronunciation as it resembles the 'o' sounds found in other European languages. To my ears, the American rendition is rather 'a'-like.>>
I assume you're talking about the 'o' as in "top" or "body?" In RP that's /Q/, which is not a vowel commonly found in other European languages. However, /o/ is, but /o/ is not found in RP. Compare the following:
German: "Boot" /bo:t/
Swedish: "båt" /bo:t/
Spanish: "codo" /kod_do/
French: "côte" /kot/
RP: "cot" /kQt/
Anyway, you're right that generally the North American vowel corresponding to RP /Q/ is /A/. Actually, depending on dialect it can be anything from RP-like /Q/ to /O/ to /A/ or /a/. But, the "General American" pronunciation of, say, "cot" is /kAt/, which sounds close to RP "cart" /kA:t/, which is of course /kAr\t/ in General American since it's rhotic.
<<I've always thought that.....that the American "o" often seems to sound more like an "a". eg "dog" seems more like "dag". >>
Yeah, as I said before that vowel can vary widely but it is typically /A/. However, one thing to point out is that for "cot-caught" unmerged Americans (50-60% of Americans) it's not in the same vowel class as in British English. For instance, RP rhymes "dog" /dQg/ and "cot" /kQt/ while "cot-caught" unmerged American English is for historical reasons also "cloth-lot" unmerged (some very conservative RP/"Upper RP" speakers are also "cloth-lot" unmerged but that's one the wane now in the UK. Even then for those speakers RP "dog" is not in the "cloth" class but the "lot" one) so in such accents "dog" belongs in the "cloth" class, thus having a different a different vowel from "lot."
Let's take an example from a "cot-caught" unmerged speaker of General American. Their vowels will be as follows:
"cot" /kAt/
"lot" /lAt/
"cloth" /klOT/
"dog" /dOg/
"caught" /kOt/
Compare this to more recent RP:
"cot" /kQt/
"lot" /lQt/
"cloth" /klQT/
"dog" /dQg/
"caught" /kO:t/
And to conservative RP or "Upper RP" (think the Queen Mum or Lord Onslow, who can be heard here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/routesofenglish/storysofar/posh.shtml):
"cot" /kQt/
"lot" /lQt/
"cloth" /klO:T/
"dog" /dQg/
"caught" /kO:t/
Or my accent, a "cot-caught" merged (and thus, by definition, a "cloth-lot" merged) American one:
"cot" /kAt/
"lot" /lAt/
"cloth" /klAT/
"dog" /dAg/
"caught" /kAt/
I assume you're talking about the 'o' as in "top" or "body?" In RP that's /Q/, which is not a vowel commonly found in other European languages. However, /o/ is, but /o/ is not found in RP. Compare the following:
German: "Boot" /bo:t/
Swedish: "båt" /bo:t/
Spanish: "codo" /kod_do/
French: "côte" /kot/
RP: "cot" /kQt/
Anyway, you're right that generally the North American vowel corresponding to RP /Q/ is /A/. Actually, depending on dialect it can be anything from RP-like /Q/ to /O/ to /A/ or /a/. But, the "General American" pronunciation of, say, "cot" is /kAt/, which sounds close to RP "cart" /kA:t/, which is of course /kAr\t/ in General American since it's rhotic.
<<I've always thought that.....that the American "o" often seems to sound more like an "a". eg "dog" seems more like "dag". >>
Yeah, as I said before that vowel can vary widely but it is typically /A/. However, one thing to point out is that for "cot-caught" unmerged Americans (50-60% of Americans) it's not in the same vowel class as in British English. For instance, RP rhymes "dog" /dQg/ and "cot" /kQt/ while "cot-caught" unmerged American English is for historical reasons also "cloth-lot" unmerged (some very conservative RP/"Upper RP" speakers are also "cloth-lot" unmerged but that's one the wane now in the UK. Even then for those speakers RP "dog" is not in the "cloth" class but the "lot" one) so in such accents "dog" belongs in the "cloth" class, thus having a different a different vowel from "lot."
Let's take an example from a "cot-caught" unmerged speaker of General American. Their vowels will be as follows:
"cot" /kAt/
"lot" /lAt/
"cloth" /klOT/
"dog" /dOg/
"caught" /kOt/
Compare this to more recent RP:
"cot" /kQt/
"lot" /lQt/
"cloth" /klQT/
"dog" /dQg/
"caught" /kO:t/
And to conservative RP or "Upper RP" (think the Queen Mum or Lord Onslow, who can be heard here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/routesofenglish/storysofar/posh.shtml):
"cot" /kQt/
"lot" /lQt/
"cloth" /klO:T/
"dog" /dQg/
"caught" /kO:t/
Or my accent, a "cot-caught" merged (and thus, by definition, a "cloth-lot" merged) American one:
"cot" /kAt/
"lot" /lAt/
"cloth" /klAT/
"dog" /dAg/
"caught" /kAt/
<<I've always thought that.....that the American "o" often seems to sound more like an "a". eg "dog" seems more like "dag".>>
I find that unusual and extreme. Your accent is quite unique if that's the case because neither correspond to my pronunciations or others I've heard. Using XSAMPA as above, I say
/dOg/ for dog
/d{:g/ for dag (According to your description, I think you say [dag])
/da:g/ for dahg (if there was such a word)
/dag/ for dug
I pronouce "dug" the way you pronounce "dag" from what you say.
This is why the use of symbols is indispensable.
I find that unusual and extreme. Your accent is quite unique if that's the case because neither correspond to my pronunciations or others I've heard. Using XSAMPA as above, I say
/dOg/ for dog
/d{:g/ for dag (According to your description, I think you say [dag])
/da:g/ for dahg (if there was such a word)
/dag/ for dug
I pronouce "dug" the way you pronounce "dag" from what you say.
This is why the use of symbols is indispensable.