Believe it or not but PC is coming back...

On 21/12/14 02:17, Katy Jennison wrote:
On 20/12/2014 15:06, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 10:21:29 +0000, Dr Nick
wrote:

Oliver Cromm writes:

AFAIK mobile phones in Europe don't have area codes. In their
place, there's a vendor- or service-specific sequence. So these
numbers aren't geographically specific below the country level.

Yes, so I meant that I'd expect a landline to have a number starting +1
or +2 while a mobile would start +7.

I know very little about European telephone numbers, but I've called a
number in Rome several times in the last few weeks. After the country
code (39) and the city code (06), the number doesn't start with 1, 2,
or 7; it starts with 3.

It's the city code which is replaced by a number starting with 7, at
least for UK mobile phones.

Most importantly, the rules are different in different countries.

Australian area codes all start with 0, but there are some combinations
that are not used for area codes. My VoIP phone number starts with 09,
which is not a valid area code. (But people calling me don't need to
know that, because it's mapped to a stock-standard landline number.) All
mobile phones here have numbers starting with 04, which again is not a
valid area code.

With international calls, you have to know things like whether a leading
zero in an area code should be deleted, and whether the area code has a
fixed or variable number of digits, and you can't be certain of either
of those things until you've looked up the rules for the destination
country.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:38:06 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 01:26:41 +0100, James Hogg wrote:

Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:07:45 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

Seymore4Head led me to notice that I was careless in my last remark.

Spanish *has* the 'ch' phoneme; the one it lacks is the 'sh' phoneme, as
in "share".

And all (almost all?) languages beside English lack the "th."

... besides English, Spanish, Icelandic, Greek, Welsh, ...

Arabic too. It has both a voiced and unvoiced 'theta' and an emphatic
one. Dialects may vary, especially with the last one, however.



OK, but considering that "there are roughly 6,500 spoken languages in
the world today"
(http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/man...anguages.html), I stick
with my *almost* all.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" writes:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:17:55 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
wrote:

What is weird in the UK is the use in the broadcasting world of
"digital" to refer to certain channels. Before the switch-off of
analogue TV transmitters the main TV channels were broadcast on
analogue. Other "secondary" channels were broadcast on digital *only*.
It was reasonable to label that group as "digital channels". That
designation has been retain even though all channels are now broadcast
digitally.

Here in the States, starting with the lead-up to the analog to digital
conversion, antenna ("aerial" in the UK) manufacturers began to market
"digital" antennas, preying on the unsuspecting public's fears that their
existing rooftop antennas would somehow cease to function in the presence of
digital signals. The antenna, of course, doesn't know the difference between
an analog signal and its digital counterpart.

Exactly the same happened here, of course! (And, also, new televisions
_without_ a digital receiver were being sold right up to - if not
beyond - the switchover.)

Although sometimes it wasn't a con. I needed a new aerial to get the
digital stations when the analogue were still running. For geographical
and historical reasons they had to put the digital signals at the
opposite end to the analogue ones.

Of course it wasn't a digital aerial I needed, it was a wideband one.
But I did need it (I tried without).

In message , Mayayana
writes:
| Where are you located?
|

Boston. Located *and* from. Though both
my parents also grew up near Boston, within
1/2 mile of each other, and they had different
accents. My mother pronounced bathroom
like cat. I pronounce it almost like British
pronunciation. My father is somewhere in

Of course, that needs clarification - in Britain, that varies from
region to region - very roughly and inaccurately, in the north "bath"
rhymes with fat, in the south with fart.
[]
| Anyhow, it's a complicated question. OTOH, it's a matter of how we hear
| the language we speak, OTOH it's a matter of conceptualization. American

I think abbreviating both of those is unfortunate, as it comes to the
same abbreviation ... (-:
[]
I grew up calling carbonated drinks "tonic". It turns
out that's a very local usage, probably dating back
to tonic medicines. But I don't call it tonic now
because there are so many immigrants in Boston
from the Midwest that most people I know wouldn't
know what I was talking about.

Not sure what I grew up calling them - fizzy drinks I think; my
grandmother (north England) referring to someone she knew as being in
the "pop business" confused me, as I at first assumed she meant the
recording industry. (And I gather that "soda" is a common term for them
in much of NA.)

So as time goes on, regional dialects and accents
seem to be getting overrun by a combination of
mass media and manic mobility.


--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

In message , Tony Cooper
writes:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:26:23 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 10:52:41 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

Eg, in downtown
Chicago about 40 years ago I heard "real Chicagoan", and I could make
out maybe three words in ten. Linguistically, it's a different language,
but sociopolitically it's a variant of American English.


Your "three words in ten" reminds me of the movie "the Full Monte." I
could understand only three words in ten of it, and those three were
always "fook."

If you want to watch a movie where you will understand fewer than
three words in ten, watch Brad Pitt in "Snatch".

I don't suppose "that sinking feeling" (made by the same director or
producer as "Gregory's girl", but earlier in his career) has much of a
US circulation; that's broad Glaswegian, and I couldn't understand much
of it at all. I've also met Geordie (roughly, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and
south Northumberland) and Norfolk that were sufficiently "broad" that I
couldn't understand them - both single individuals. (Whether it was
accent alone or vocabulary, I couldn't say, as I couldn't understand
them!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

In message , Gene E. Bloch
writes:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:49:39 -0500, Seymore4Head wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:25:29 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:53:02 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:02:27 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:25:31 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:


Er, in most American and Canadian dialects merry, marry, and Mary all
rhyme with hairy.



That's certainly common in some parts of the USA, but I wouldn't say
"most." They're not the same when I pronounce them, and I know many
people from all over the USA who are the same as I am in that regard.

I don't know about Canada.

The first three words sound 100% identical to me, with their meanings only
being evident via context, and of course each of them rhymes with the last
word. If they don't sound that way to you, can you give examples of words
that each does rhyme with, so that I can hear what you mean?

No. You can't without help hear the differences, because, like nearly
all speakers of all languages, you hear "phonemes", not distinct sounds.

That's a _bit_ strong; certainly some people are that cloth-eared, but
I'd question "nearly all". For example, saying merry, marry, and Mary
sound the same or different is a description of how they are pronounced
in various places/classes/groups, not saying that people can't hear the
differences when they _are_ spoken differently.

It takes multi-lingual or multi dialect experience or training to break
out of that.

That certainly _helps_.
[]
Spanish has the 'ch' phoneme as in English "church" but not the 'sh'
phoneme, as in I was shtupid :-)

Whereas German doesn't have the ch as in English church or chocolate. It
_does_ have a ch sound that _we_ don't; it shares this with Scottish,
and it does depress me that a lot of (at least British) English speakers
think that that sound is k (they pronounce Scottish lakes as lock, and
the German composer as either Bark or Bak, depending on where they come
from - _and they don't realise it's wrong_).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
[]
"Ch" in German is pronounced two different ways, depending on the
word. The "ch" in "ach" is easy for most English speakers, but the
"ch" in "ich" is hard.

If you'd heard as many even otherwise-intelligent British people as I
have pronounce the German composer "Bak" (or "Bark"), ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 10:21:29 +0000, Dr Nick
wrote:

Oliver Cromm writes:

AFAIK mobile phones in Europe don't have area codes. In their
place, there's a vendor- or service-specific sequence. So these
numbers aren't geographically specific below the country level.

Yes, so I meant that I'd expect a landline to have a number starting +1
or +2 while a mobile would start +7.



I know very little about European telephone numbers, but I've called a
number in Rome several times in the last few weeks. After the country
code (39) and the city code (06), the number doesn't start with 1, 2,
or 7; it starts with 3.

The 1, 2, and 7 must be UK-specific, then. Here in 44-land, calling
_from_ a UK number, a landline number will begin 01 or 02, and a mobile
number 07. All will have 11 digits including the 0. The (landline) part
that begins 01 or 02 - usually three or four digits after the 0 - is the
"area code"; if calling a landline from another landline in the same
area code, I can (in most places, anyway) omit the area code, and just
"dial" the last six or seven digits (which will _not_ start with 0).
Calling from a mobile number, all 11 digits must be dialled. Calling
abroad starts with 00. Calling UK _from_ abroad needs whatever you dial
in that country for international, followed by 44, followed by the last
ten digits - i. e. omitting the leading 0 - of the full number (either
geographic [area code plus number] or "mobile").
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:11:15 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
[]
"Ch" in German is pronounced two different ways, depending on the
word. The "ch" in "ach" is easy for most English speakers, but the
"ch" in "ich" is hard.

If you'd heard as many even otherwise-intelligent British people as I
have pronounce the German composer "Bak" (or "Bark"), ...


I've heard people say that many times in the USA too. Nevertheless, my
point that for an English speaker, "ach" (or "Bach") is easier to
pronounce than "ich" still stands.

I studied German in College, and throughout the two years I studied,
there were some in my class who pronounced "ich" with the "ch" of
"ach."

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 12:47:36 -0500, Wolf K wrote:

On 2014-12-20 8:08 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:31:46 -0500, Wolf K wrote:

[...]
Aha! Your context is different.

Here, Skype is free (== just another use of the 'net connection) as long
as you connect to another Skyped machine. There will be a lot of Skyping
next week. :-) If you pay, you can call people's phones, but nobody I
know does that. Why use Skype if the phone is available ?

Well yes, Skype is "free" in the sense that in the sense that you don't have
to pay more for it than for anything else on the Internet. Watching videos on
YouTube is also "free" in that sense, but both still consume bandwidth, which
has to be paid for.

Not here. It's a flat rate. Everybody pays the same, no matter how much
bandwidth they use. Our ISP's have tried to impose limits, but so far
the regulations haven't allowed it.

Whichn brings us back fukll circle -- that would you be why you do video on
Skype, while I do voice. But the voice definitely goes over the Internet.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2014-12-21 1:06 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
[]
Spanish has the 'ch' phoneme as in English "church" but not the 'sh'
phoneme, as in I was shtupid :-)

Whereas German doesn't have the ch as in English church or chocolate.

Oh yes it does, it just doesn't spell it ch.

The comment confuses spelling (graphemes) and sounds (phonemes). NB
that ch in "church" represents /t/+/sh/, which is easy and common in
German, usually spelled t+sch: quietschen, Hutsche, tschuess,
quatsch, Kutsche, rutschen, Tschechei, Kitsch, etc.

Hm, I thought as I was writing it that it probably does, I just couldn't
think of any examples. However, I don't think the ones you've given are
_quite_ the same - a little "softer", or "slushier", IMO, and with the
"t" slightly more audible than in the English church. (I think I _do_
have a reasonable ear for such things.)

It
_does_ have a ch sound that _we_ don't; it shares this with Scottish,
and it does depress me that a lot of (at least British) English speakers
think that that sound is k (they pronounce Scottish lakes as lock, and
the German composer as either Bark or Bak, depending on where they come
from - _and they don't realise it's wrong_).

I'm afraid your comment displays the confusion engendered by using
letter names rather than sounds. There is no "ch sound". There are

I am fully aware of that confusion, and was just using a form of
shorthand. Sorry I confused you.

sounds (phonemes) represented by ch, some of which can also be
represented by other letters or letter-combinations (graphemes),
depending on spelling rules for a given language. BTW in English, ch
for /sh/ is more common than sh.

I should have said "German does have a sound - which it represents as
'ch' -"; I thought in this context that "has a ch sound" would be
understood. I could have put quotes round ch, I suppose.

You may know that gh in modern English words represented the "German
ch" (a glottal fricative) in Middle English. The spelling was devised
by the Norman French scribes who tried to write down the uncouth
language that the Anglo-Saxons spoke. The fact that gh was used for
this instead of ch or kh suggests a) that the sound represented by
g in Norman French was not voiced; or b) that the Anglo-Saxon glottal
fricative was voiced; or c) maybe both.

Sounds very plausible (all of the possibilities). I'd ask my mum if she
was still alive: her degree was in Mediaeval French (she could explain
the "whan that" in Chaucer, for example).

Datapoint: I helped a terrible speller gain confidence by starting
over, one sound (phoneme) of English at a time. We found a sample word
for each spelling of a given sound, then she had to find three more
words (if possible) using the same spelling-sound relationship. We
didn't even have to go through all 40-odd English phonemes, she caught
on before we'd finished all the vowels (there are around 20 vowels in
English, BTW).

But English is far from a phonetic language - a lot further than most of
our near neighbours, anyway! Congratulations on getting to a point where
she had some confidence before all the exceptions raised their ugly
heads!

Have a good day,

You too. [I was going to drop it until you said I was confused (-:;
family honour etc. - mum as described, dad loved languages too, brother
is associate editor responsible for the three or four longest entries,
.... I'm in electronics myself, but still love languages! (Even some
computer ones.)]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

I am way late to this newsgroup thread due to my BUSY (a dial-up modem
reference!) life. When I think of cables, I think those cables like coax
cables for TV, Internet, phone, etc. Landlines would be like copper
wires, but coax could fit with this since they are land based. Wireless
= no cables from one place to another. Satellite is also wireless, but
from space.
--
"Thanks for giving me the courage to eat all those ants." --unknown
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:28:56 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:53:02 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:02:27 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:25:31 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:


Er, in most American and Canadian dialects merry, marry, and Mary all
rhyme with hairy.



That's certainly common in some parts of the USA, but I wouldn't say
"most." They're not the same when I pronounce them, and I know many
people from all over the USA who are the same as I am in that regard.

I don't know about Canada.

The first three words sound 100% identical to me, with their meanings only
being evident via context, and of course each of them rhymes with the last
word. If they don't sound that way to you, can you give examples of words
that each does rhyme with, so that I can hear what you mean?



Sure.

Merry - Jerry, berry, ferry.

Marry - Harry, Larry, carry.

Mary - hairy, fairy, dairy.

LOL I thought that would help, but instead all it did was show me 12 words
that rhyme perfectly with one another. I guess I'm applying my own accent as
I read them. Thanks for trying. :-)

--

Char Jackson

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:25:29 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:53:02 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:02:27 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:25:31 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:


Er, in most American and Canadian dialects merry, marry, and Mary all
rhyme with hairy.



That's certainly common in some parts of the USA, but I wouldn't say
"most." They're not the same when I pronounce them, and I know many
people from all over the USA who are the same as I am in that regard.

I don't know about Canada.

The first three words sound 100% identical to me, with their meanings only
being evident via context, and of course each of them rhymes with the last
word. If they don't sound that way to you, can you give examples of words
that each does rhyme with, so that I can hear what you mean?

No. You can't without help hear the differences, because, like nearly
all speakers of all languages, you hear "phonemes", not distinct sounds.

It takes multi-lingual or multi dialect experience or training to break
out of that.

All the words Ken or Wolf or I would give you would to your ears rhyme
with exactly how you hear the first set that Wolf posted.

A phoneme is an equivalence class of sounds. Every member of that class
is to most relevant speakers the same sound. Which phonemes are present
is unique to each dialect, even each idiolect, of a given language. The
's' phoneme of Spanish, for example, is not identical to the 's' phoneme
of English, and Spanish doesn't even have a 'ch' phoneme (as in
"church") in most dialects.

You seem to be shutting the door. Frequently, there's some kind of
exaggeration that illustrates the point, but apparently not here. So what
I'm 'hearing' is that it's not a case of people saying these words
differently, but rather people are hearing them differently. I'm ok with
that.

--

Char Jackson

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 03:08:17 +0200, Steve Hayes
wrote:

Well yes, Skype is "free" in the sense that in the sense that you don't have
to pay more for it than for anything else on the Internet. Watching videos on
YouTube is also "free" in that sense, but both still consume bandwidth, which
has to be paid for.

I get a cold chill when I think about what the Internet experience would be
like if I had to directly pay for the bandwidth that I use.

--

Char Jackson