There's a similar anecdote Gillian Anderson recently revealed during an interview on the X-Files, saying Chris Carter had an OCD-like habit to write dialog to conform to certain text layout preferences (no widows[1]) in the script, which made for the show's distinctive style of dialog cadence.
Forming every paragraph of dialog into perfect rectangles is way more extreme than just avoiding "widows". The usual term for this is "full justification" and typographically when it's done it's typically through word spacing and letter spacing.
I've sometimes heard "orphan" to represent a single word left alone on a line at the end of a paragraph, but the terms are often confused and Carter could have used "widow" in that sense.
I'm curious to see what the scripts actually looked like.
Funny because "fixing an orphan" is hard in real life (assuming they've lost both their parents, you have to find them a foster home) but easy in typesetting (just add an empty line before), whereas "fixing a widow" is easy in real life (just remarry) but hard in typesetting.
How is finding one person suitable to be a parent (to make them a foster parent) differently hard, than finding another person suitable to be a parent (to marry them)?
For a foster parent you only need to find someone willing to adopt a child, which already register themself into a list. For marriage you need to find someone willing to marry and to marry you out of random people.
The explanation for the German words (widow = Schusterjunge, which means cobbler‘s boy, orphan = hurenkind, as mentioned in another comment) is also applicable for the English ones:
An orphan doesn’t know where it comes from, a widow doesn’t know where she will go.
In german typography the name for widow is "Hurenkind" wich translates to "child of a whore". I was pretty surprised to hear that word on a regular basis while working in text for print.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurenkind_und_Schusterjunge
> I've sometimes heard "orphan" used to represent a single word left alone on its own line at the end of a paragraph, but the terms are often confused and Carter could have used "widow" in that sense.
This is an acceptable use of the term "widow". From the Oxford English Dictionary [0]:
> A short line of text (usually one consisting of one word or part of a word) which falls undesirably at the end of a paragraph, esp. one set at the top of a page or column.
But there are dozens of contradictory meanings for "widow" and "orphan" [1], so the definition that you gave isn't wrong either.
> Full justification in monospace through word choice (which is what the Ares Luna article is about) is bonkers, but I can't see that happening for TV dialog.
We're going to see more of this once diffusion language models mature. They won't match the exact length but will sure choose words to fix the set number of tokens.
A bit weird to observe how the facade cracks when they're talking about it.
Maybe I'm wrong but the whole thing felt very weird to me. Can't put my finger on it.. I want to say immature, but it's probably just unempathetic. I think my brain reached out for "immature" because I saw a lot of it among the "popular" kids at school.
They're not singling out the nerd, they're talking about someone's idiosyncrasy. Tomorrow, proverbially, they could be talking about one of Gillian's idiosyncrasies. I don't think it's immature or callous. It's just a group of people reasoning about something.
I also saw that interview, then out of curiosity I tried to find any evidence of this. There are some fan sites with ostensibly original X-Files scripts out there[1]. Looking through some written by Carter[2], I wonder if this is apocryphal, or if he was messing with her a bit.
Just scroll through and look. In almost every paragraph or dialogue block, the last line ends very close to the right margin. Pretty much the only places that doesn't happen is when there's a single short line of dialogue by itself, meaning it doesn't wrap to a second line.
Looking through scripts on Boggsfiles, it's much more inconsistent, but it does happen, and perhaps more frequently in the later seasons. Here's one, from season 9; take a look at page 10 (page 13 in the PDF) for example, but it really happens throughout.
Hah! I was wondering if it was maybe something he started doing over time and should have looked more at the later seasons I guess. It's comforting that it's not just a fun story.
I'm also reminded of how David Milch supposedly wrote a lot of Deadwood in iambic pentameter. I only learned about this after seeing the show, but I did pick up the "Shakespearean" feel of some of the dialogue. Constraints often force creativity.
ELLSWORTH (CONT'D)
I tell you what -- I may have fucked
~~ life up flatter"n hammered shit,
but I stand before you today
beholden to no human cocksucker
and working a paying fucking gold
claim -- and not the U.S. Government
saying I'm trespassing or the savage
fucking Red Man himself or any of
these other limber-dick cocksuckers
passing themselves off as
prospectors had better try to stop
me.
I can’t hear it, although it certainly has certain rhythm to it (like any good dialogue does). Iambic rhythm however is so typical to English that you can kinda force most dialogue into it? I also believe writers make these rules to brake them the first change they get. Or perhaps I couldn’t find it skimming the pilot script: https://assets.scriptslug.com/live/pdf/scripts/deadwood-101-...
The claim comes from Milch himself. I don't know how much he was exaggerating, or how much of it may be true but didn't make it into the final shooting script.
E.B.'s soliloquy isn't in strict blank verse, but you don't have to squint too hard to find some metric structure.
You have been tested, Al Swearengen.
And your deepest purposes proved, there’s gold
On the woman’s claim. You might as well have shouted
It from the rooftops. That’s why I’m jumpin’
Through hoops to get it back. Thorough as I fleeced
The fool she married, I will fleece his widow, too.
Using loyal associates like Eustace
Bailey Farnum as my go-betweens and dupes.
To explain why I want her bought out I’ll make
A pretext of my fear of the Pinkertons.
I’ll throw Farnum a token thief. Why should
I reward E.B. with some small fractional
Participation in the claim? Or let him
Even lay by a little security
And source of continuing income, for
His declining years. What’s he ever done for me?
Except let me terrify him every
Goddamned day of his life ’til the idea
Of bowel regularity is a full-on
Fuckin’ hope. Not to mention orderin’
A man killed in one of E.B.’s rooms.
So every fuckin’ free moment of his life
E.B. has to spend scrubbin’ the bloodstains
Off the goddamned floor! To keep from havin’
To lower his rates. Goddamned that motherfucker!
Most of the lines in that soliloquy is over 10 syllables, so it technically can’t be in pentameter. So either I am very confused about my understanding of the English poetry or this:
Most of the show is written in iambic pentameter. I believe one way God says, “I too have a hand here” is in the rhythms and metrics of speech, that the metrics of speech are important and representative of our fellowship even in those of us who feel, mistakenly, that we are separate from each other as individuals.
When a character in Deadwood, or anyone, talks in certain locutions, unbeknownst to themselves, they honor a divine presence.[1]
is a very contradictory statement indeed.
To be fair, I don’t care. I loved the series and now I started to read the script and oh man, it’s like a really good novel. Very much prose in no foxed meter, but damn if it isn’t great prose. I might just start reading through Deadwood scripts, since I watched the series to death anyway.
"No widows" on its own isn't enough to create a distinctive dialog cadence.
"Widows" (alone at the top) and "orphans" (alone at the bottom) are single lines cut off from the rest of a paragraph by a column/page break. The solution is generally just to fiddle with column/page breaks, which is purely typographical.
I'm sure that there's a distinct identity to X-Files dialog; it's just not due to this quirk.
I can totally see a fellow typography geek bragging about this to someone and them being horrified haha.
I had the same thought, but I think the idea is that it didn't so much create a specific cadence as the cadence was a bit odd because the language needed to fit the visual layout rather than feel natural when spoken.
the distinctive cadence is not a direct consequence from eliminating widows but from the mental process used to achieve this efficiently. language goes from natural fluidity to stacking Lego bricks.
Bugger all - particularly given the boom mic operator and other framing "gaffs" are (as I recall) all part of the "wide screen" 16:9 later release on BluRay etc that were somewhat rushed out the door.
A number of show of that era were filmed wide (16:9) and post processed / coloured / reframed and broadcast on TV in a box 4:3 aspect ratio
No visible boom mic operators, etc - careful eyes in the initial post production for TV phase saw to that.
Later wide screen releases were rushed with no real post production budget to address these and other issues - that's on the studios wanting a second grab at money, not the original creative teams.
Similar complaints abound for Buffy the Vampire Slayer and (IIRC) The Wire (?) and their wide screen releases.
There's a famous example of this in Malcolm in the Middle where the camera cuts to a different shot and a stand-in for Dewey is visible in the 16:9 release, but was not visible in the original 4:3 broadcast. So in one shot you have Dewey's normal actor, then in the next there is some random kid.
A recent similar example was Mad Men rerelease in 4k where the VFX weren't redone properly after a rescan of the film and you can see the man operating the machine with the pipe that spews sick out of a characters mouth.
That's interesting, I didn't know that's what they were called. I definitely try to avoid widows and orphans in my own writing, and have definitely chosen words carefully to that same effect.
> This presents a problem for the typical way that academic papers are written, which is to do all the work in a coffee-fueled fugue in the last few days before the deadline, then stay up all night writing the paper and finding citations for the pro-forma “related work” section which you did last but you know that the reviewers will insist upon
I have zero exposure to academia but chuckled because thats often what I do for blog posts :P
AIs these days are pretty good for the 'find prior art and related work' part I find. Of course, you should treat their output like that of an over-eager but somewhat unreliable intern.
If you're reading this and you're put off by the "uses an LLM", don't be. This is not a low-effort video, quite the opposite. This is one of the best YouTube videos I have ever seen.
It's a guilty pleasure of mine, spending a few minutes to clean up the aesthetics of docstrings and comments. I justify (heh) it to myself by catching unclear wording on this last cleanup pass -- and not taking it too far, obstrusifying for the aesthetic.
I must admit to occasionally rearranging words or choosing different synonyms to make a column of spaces line up in a monospaced paragraph, so that you could draw a straight line down one column the screen without passing through any letters or punctuation. Or making a diagonal line of spaces, top-left to bottom-right.
I usually only did that when the text already was close to lining up that way, though.
This is the kind of thing that AI will render obsolete, which makes me sad.
But hey, we're thousands of years in and still finding creative ways to turn our time into something fun and amusing. Even with AI, I have no doubt we'll find new ways to prove we care.
The German is more crass: Hurenkind and Schusterjunge, translates to 'child of a whore' and 'shoemaker boy'. The child of a whore does not know where it comes from (who is their father), the short final line - the shoemaker boy is so poor, he does not know where he will end up (the short first line)
I wonder if at any point during writing, the heroic author of that Super Metroid guide learned that "missiles" are not spent "missles", and decided to own the mistake rather than reword the entire guide.
Judging by the lowercase “m” it’s the 8x16 variation[1] and not the 9x16 one you linked, but otherwise yes, looks like the plain old VGA font? (Incorrectly displayed, as the site points out: the VGA didn’t have square pixels in either of those modes.) The site uses (AVIF) images in place of text, but it’s like 15 minutes to write a program that typesets an ASCII file in a given monospace bitmap font and writes out the result as say a PPM (and I’m sure ImageMagick can do it if you’d rather dig through docs than program), so this doesn’t seem to require any further explanation?
I few years ago I saw a TV interview where some gen-z kid confidently stated: "the dictdionary is supposed to reflect how I talk, not the other was around."
Most dictionaries are descriptivist, and
that's why they frequently have multiple
spellings of words. It's because of your
teachers, style guides & internet trolls
that anyone says the dictionary spelling
is the only correct spelling.
The tricky part is that spoken language and written language are not the same. Even if you are a descriptionist that believes dictionaries should represent how people write, it doesn't necessarily mean that the spelling changes based on how people pronounce it.
A dictionary would be all but useless, if it included words used for 2 months, and essentially never used in that context, way, or spelling again. That sort of means teenage slang probably shouldn't appear, and amusingly if it did appear in the dictionary, it'd probably be less 'cool' to use that slang.
And alt-spellings for 'being kool' aren't what I'd call a dictionary thing.
Put another way, slang is in the dictionary, but only long-standing slang. Such as 'cool'. I'd see it more as temp slang->more used->enters dictionary-> eventually the 'slang' note is dropped, it's just language.
I'd want to see a word used for a few years, before it enters. And really, some slang morphs endlessly, like a fire flickering and then going out. How do you capture that? Even online, it'd be out of date once published.
And lots of slang is colloquial. Do you care to add slang language used across dozens of regions in the US?
I recall 20 years ago, Oxford Dictionary took a literal physical trip across Canada, and made the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, filled with 2200 'Canadianisms'. Akin to what you're saying here, if people are using it, it should be in there. But these were things Canadians had been saying for decades...
Anyhow.
I guess my point is, the kid was wrong because transitory has no value in the dictionary. His special words won't be used by even him, in a year.
They pronounce these words as if the e and the l were reversed, if "truffle" was written in a phonetic manner it would be written "truffel". Since the "l" sound is last and preceded by a schwa, "truffle" (or "missle") obviously cannot be considered phonetic.
> They pronounce these words as if the e and the l were reversed, if "truffle" was written in a phonetic manner it would be written "truffel".
You can just look this up. The usual way to write "truffle" in a phonetic manner is of course /tɹʌfl̩/. You'll note that there is no vowel in the second syllable at all; it consists of just the L. (And that's what the small mark below the L means - "syllabic".) This is the standard phonetic analysis.
You might also notice that the IPA differs from your proposed spelling in several other ways. One, the difference between "ɹ" and "r", has no relevance in a discussion of English. But the difference between "f" and "ff" is more significant, and the difference between "u" (the vowel in GOOSE) and "ʌ" (the vowel in STRUT) is of critical importance.
And this is still just a phonemic transcription. Phonetically, you'd expect the word to be [tʃɹʌfl̩], with the initial consonant matching that of "chill" and not "till".
All of these are conventions of written English. Written "tr" is pronounced as if it were written "chr". Pronounced [tʃɹ] is always spelled "tr" and never spelled "chr". The difference in vowel quality between "moping" and "mopping" is indicated, as you probably already noticed, by the doubling of the consonant written after the vowel, and this is also the reason for the double "f" in "truffle". Why do we write an extra "f" when what we mean is that we're changing the pronunciation of the vowel before it? Not for phonetic reasons.
And what do you know, there's a standard spelling of syllabic L in English too, and that standard spelling is "-le", not "-el". That spelling is phonetic in exactly the same way that using "m" to spell the initial consonant of "mat" is phonetic - it is the established mapping between the orthography and the pronunciation.
Well I know what you mean, it's phonetic in the same way that a silent "ent" and "p" in "comptent" are "phonetic" in French, or the silent "n"s in "pannenkoeken" are in Dutch. In common language though we call that "not phonetic". But that's not what the person you were responding to was talking about, and it also has nothing to do with IPA notation: we were obviously not writing IPA here.
However to come back to IPA and "truffle", Wiktionary (not a definitive source I know, but there is no definitive source whatsoever about anything regarding the English language) does that say "truffle" rymes with /-ʌfəl/ with a schwa right there between the f and the l. The pronunciation of the word itself in Wiktionary is indicated with a syllable break rather than a schwa, which I would absolutely dispute, and indeed it looks like Cambridge dictionary[1] puts a schwa there in addition to the syllable break.
It's also written "truffel" in Dutch for what it's worth.
> Well I know what you mean, it's phonetic in the same way that a silent "ent" and "p" in "comptent" are "phonetic" in French
No, that's not what I said at all. Stipulating that the -ent and the -p- are silent in the French word comptent, there is also a French word comte of identical pronunciation, which limits the amount of phonetic information that the silent -ent and -p- could be carrying. (In fact, I believe the verb ending may be realized in certain cases, as the "silent N" ending the English indefinite article is often realized.)
The doubling of the "f" in truffle is nothing like that. The hypothetical word trufle would be pronounced differently. That difference wouldn't have anything to do with the F, but nevertheless it is indicated by the spelling; the spelling is conveying phonetic information.
This is also the case for the spelling -le. It represents an English sound. It is the spelling you would expect a trained speaker to produce for a novel word featuring that sound. You can't get any more phonetic than that.
> Wiktionary (not a definitive source I know, but there is no definitive source whatsoever about anything regarding the English language) does that say "truffle" rymes with /-ʌfəl/ with a schwa right there between the f and the l.
I'll return to this in a moment.
> The pronunciation of the word itself in Wiktionary is indicated with a syllable break rather than a schwa,
Just to be clear, the "syllable break" is the period between the f and the syllabic l. The symbol that tells you the l constitutes a syllable in itself is the small mark underneath it.
> which I would absolutely dispute
Why? That's how the word is pronounced.
> and indeed it looks like Cambridge dictionary puts a schwa there in addition to the syllable break.
We're back to the first point!
First, let's observe that there is absolutely no dispute over the idea that "truffle" is two syllables long. The presence of a syllable break is universally agreed.
Second, the reason wiktionary gives a more accurate rendition of the pronunciation is that it's mostly maintained by enthusiasts.
The convention of dictionaries is cited by wikipedia:
> Many dialects of English may use syllabic consonants in words such as sudden [ˈsʌd.n̩], awful [ˈɔːfɫ̩] and rhythm [ˈɹɪðm̩], which English dictionaries' respelling systems usually treat as realizations of underlying sequences of schwa and a consonant (for example, /ˈsʌd.ən/).
This is a convention, no less than the spelling "-le" is. It is advantageous in dictionaries, where you'd like each syllable to be more or less pronounceable on its own; the grapheme "-le" can't occur in isolation. The phonetic analysis is what I already told you it is, and what wikipedia repeats in that quote.
(In the case of sudden, the difference is crystal clear - if you pronounce it without detaching your tongue from the roof of your mouth between the /d/ and the /n/, you can only be producing a syllabic n. You can also do this test with subtle, but not with truffle, since /f/ doesn't share the same articulatory properties that /d/, /t/, and /l/ do.)
Conversations like this are a dead end. You can't devise a phonetic spelling convention without using a phonetic alphabet. The reason you think that "le" makes sense and the person you are responding to thinks otherwise is that in English, the pronunciation of "le" isn't phonetically consistent.
I imagine that GP's reasoning is that in writing "missile", the consonant is followed by a vowel, while phonetically the vowel is followed by a consonant.
The issue is further compounded by the fact that there's more than one common pronunciation of "missile".
> Conversations like this are a dead end. You can't devise a phonetic spelling convention without using a phonetic alphabet.
I don't disagree with the latter point, but the former doesn't make sense to me; unless you're saying that there wouldn't be enough phonemes representable by the letters to define spellings for all English words? In my mind, the entire point of a conversation like this is hypothetical changes to the language to make it phonetically consistent; of course it isn't right now, or we wouldn't need to have a conversation.
You've correctly identified what my reasoning is, but you seem to be circularly saying that since English isn't currently phonetic, it's impossible to come up with a spelling for it using sounds that roughly resemble the common sounds letters are using today in order to make it phonetic. I guess I don't know that it's literally impossible, but I don't think it's self-evident that it's not possible, and I think it's fairly straightforward changing the spelling of words ending in "le" to "el" would be more consistent to how "le" is used in other places in words where changing their spelling would be more difficult (e.g. there's not really any clear way to spell "less" without preserving "le" at the beginning).
You're definitely right that I hadn't considered that some dialects pronounce "missile" in a way where it's pronounced differently, but I'd argue that the obvious example (British pronunciation) was already basically ignored by the comment I was responding to, so I didn't really introduce the inconsistency.
> and I think it's fairly straightforward changing the spelling of words ending in "le" to "el" would be more consistent to how "le" is used in other places in words where changing their spelling would be more difficult (e.g. there's not really any clear way to spell "less" without preserving "le" at the beginning).
I don't see why that argument is supposed to make sense on its own terms. The system we have now is that -le and le- are different. You want to reform -le to be spelled -el because its pronunciation is closer to that of (-)el- than to le-.
But making that spelling change will reduce the "inconsistency" you don't like that exists between -le and le- precisely by introducing a new inconsistency between -el and el-. Why is that supposed to be an improvement of any kind?
> but the former doesn't make sense to me; unless you're saying that there wouldn't be enough phonemes representable by the letters to define spellings for all English words?
Then you're inventing a phonetic alphabet that happens to look like the English alphabet. That's what makes discussions like this are pointless. No one has established a phonetic definition of "le" or "el", which is the only basis according to which one can decide which is phonetically more appropriate.
I think they pronounce them non-phonetically, and I'm not really sure what's confusing about that. Pronunciation differing from spelling is literally what it means to say something isn't phonetic; if I accepted the spelling of other non-phonetic words as proof that something is phonetic, then everything by definition would be phonetic, and the entire concept would be pointless.
In my mind, the natural phonetic spelling of "le" is an L sound followed by an E sound. Works like "truffle" and "turtle" have an E sound followed by an L sound. I don't think that's phonetic.
Only for Americans. In British English, it's "MISS isle", and "MISSul" is
a church book. I'm not Christian and I am not sure of exactly what's in a
_missal_ but it's prayers or something.
I do not know if American English even has missals. They're old fashioned
things these days, I think. But in my dialect, "missile" and "missal" are
two different words with 2 different sounds, which means that when I hear
Americans talking about the fast moving weaponry what I hear is that they
are launching prayer books at someone. It's not a very common word and so
I keep forgetting.
A missal generally has bible passages organized by mass date (instead of in the usual order), as well as some hymns and a reference to the order of mass (the things that happen when you go to church)
I was very vaguely notionally Church of England until age 11, although still had to go to Chapel daily from 12-17. I have never been to Mass and I don't really know what goes on in a Mass. I'm not even sure if Anglicans have Mass.
My local Canon certainly had plenty of small-m mass: big lad. Nonetheless, when he scattered my father's ashes in the sea, he got caught by a wave, and proved that despite this he could run backwards up a shingle beach, wearing wet robes, at surprising speed.
You did not restrict which people you were talking about, and that's a critical omission. Nobody in my daily life, in real life where I live or on TV or radio, would ever say "missal" when they meant "missile".
And are British, at least in Australia (and the US, I guess?) we pronounce the second "i".
It is always fun when you notice where someone is from based on secondary clues like that -- my favourite is the choice of "a" or "an" where it is ambiguous (for instance, I recently ran across "an HTTP request" where I would've said "a HTTP request").
A shibboleth is a little more specific: it's the pronunciation of one
specific sound in a different way that marks out a person as from one
specific group.
So, some of the go-tos... New Zealand English tends to turn an /i/ in
even stressed positions into schwa (the sound on the end of "little",
or "umbrella", or "gopher", and one of the key sounds to master for a
non-native learner who wants to improve their English accent). When a
Kiwi says "fish and chips" it sounds like "fush and chups", "swimming
pool" becomes "swumming pool", and this is _the_ way to distinguish a
Kiwi from an Australian, because to the rest of the Anglophone world,
NZ English sounds very like Aus English.
Canadians tend to pronounce the "ow" sound in words like "about" in a
way that to my British ear sounds Scottish: it becomes "aboot". So if
I hear someone speaking with an American sounding accent but they say
"I found oot aboot something," I ask them if they're Canadian. I tend
to find most Canadians and New Zealanders are delighted if someone is
able to tell, so ask very early on and you can make new friends. :-)
I guess I have mainly met older kiwis!
I slightly know Terry Stewart of https://www.classic-computers.org.nz/
from mailing lists, and while I don't follow any Youtube channels as a
rule, I used to enjoy his videos:
https://www.youtube.com/@tezzaNZ
I probably heard more NZ English from Terry than anyone else!
My understanding of shibboleth is that it refers to the primary pronunciation identifying the speaker (which is how it was used biblically).
Those are also interesting but it feels a bit more special to me when it's a secondary speech characteristic because it feels a bit more like a clue in a detective novel -- it almost feels like you can hear inside the author's head and how they vocalise while they write.
I thought the rules were clear and it depends on how the word is pronounced, with a vowel or consonant sound.
I have only heard people say H T T P, as specific letters when pronouncing HTTP, and thus the a or an should be based on how one would pronounce the letter "H".
And H would be pronounced as "aitch". Starts with an a -> vowel sound -> should be "an".
But I'm a non native english speaker, so I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Praline: 'Ello. I would like to buy a fish license, please.
Clerk: A what?
Praline: A license for my pet fish, Eric.
Clerk: How did you know my name was Eric?
Praline: No, no, no, no. My _fish's_ name is Eric. Eric the fish. 'E's an 'alibut.
Clerk: What?
Praline (in upper-class accent): He is an halibut.
There was a lot of discourse about the (then declining) aristocracy and their mannerisms, accents and so on, in the 1950s and 1960s. In particular, discussion of "U" (upper class) versus "non-U" English, highlighting the differences in language usage between classes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English
The Pythons were highly attuned to this class distinction and wrote it into their sketches. Another good sketch is an upper-class family distinguishing "woody" and "tinny" sounds, but the whole sketch's premise is to laugh at the odd mannerisms of the upper-classes.
> Specifically, upper-class Brits pronounce the "h".
I think you have this slightly muddled. It's not that upper-class Brits
pronounce more of the "h" sounds. The idea is that upper-class types go
to private schools and they learn French, and so they know that lots of
English words that have a leading "h" are French loanwords and thus the
they are unaspirated in the original, i.e. the "h" is silent – it ought
not to be said. "Hotel", "hospital", "honour", "homage", and so on - no
leading "huh" sound. Which means that the word starts on a vowel sound,
and in turn, that means it takes "an" in front not "a".
But people who don't know French and don't know which words have a sort
of silent H on the front and which don't try to hyper-correct – so they
start inserting extra initial "huh" sounds on words beginning with some
form of vowel.
This is how old British TV comedies tried to parody policemen talking -
they are often working class but in dealing with lawyers, judges, etc.,
they are aware of speaking to someone from a higher social class and so
they try to speak more "proper" and insert loads of extra "h" sounds.
"Hin my hopinion, your onner, the suspect was hup to something."
Drop the "h" sounds where they _should_ be, and at the same time insert
extra ones where they shouldn't be.
I think this is what the Pythons were playing with. Now that Britain is
a little bit less class-conscious – and foreign accents are heard a lot
more often – it doesn't seem funny any more so it's gone away. That's a
good thing overall, I reckon.
(Wondering how long I should keep this up...)
> Forever, I'm finding it very entertaining
Why thank you! :-)
There's reams of it on my late-1990s homepage, which I resurrected and
uploaded a few years ago. I did an extremely cursory update but expect
plenty of broken links and things.
Finding it is an exercise for the reader... ;-)
Hey, I can go further and point out further muddles and general weird English inconsistencies.
Expensively educated people might pronounce French loanwords by dropping the h in an ostentatiously French way (and maybe making homage rhyme with fromage) to showcase their etymology knowledge and are more likely to use the grammatical convention[1] of prefixing them with 'an' rather than 'a' even even when sounding the 'h'. But the "correct", RP way their expensive education teaches them to enunciate as English words is with a leading h and has been for a century or so, except 'honour' (and 'honest'), which pretty much no native speaker pronounces the 'h' in.
[1]now usually an historic grammatical convention ;-) it survived longer than the silent 'h' in 'historic' in conventional English speech though...
On the other hand a leading 'h' is routinely dropped in spoken English in most words in many British dialects spoken by less expensively educated people, which has no more to do with French etymology than the glottal stop that means some of the same accents also drop a lot of 't's from the middle of words. That's where all the twentieth century jokes involving people overcorrecting by inappropriately adding 'h' when trying to speak 'proper' come from
As for the name of the letter, according to the OED and RP dialect the sort of often expensive schools that emphasize correct pronunciation, it's is definitely called 'aitch' in British English. And has been for several hundred years. Not all people who pronounce it 'aitch' are "upper class" (there's a rapper with the stage name Aitch) but all people who are "upper class" are taught to pronounce it 'aitch'. On the other hand, it's a bit weird that the name of the letter doesn't contain the letter, so lots of British people whose education doesn't involve teachers emphasising The Correct Way To Speak feel the name for the letter 'h' should start with the letter 'h', hence 'haitch'.
Also, Irish dialects call it 'haitch'; in Northern Ireland it's apparently a shibboleth distinguishing between Irish-identifying Catholics ('haitch') and British-identifying Protestants ('aitch'). Suspect this also has nothing to do with the French :)
So "upper class" learn to enunciate the letter 'h' without an 'h' in it, but are taught to pronounce it more or less everywhere else (with a few quirks to keep them honest) and others more likely to drop the 'h' sound from other words but add it to the letter name. Yes, English pronunication is weird
> Also, Irish dialects call it 'haitch'; in Northern Ireland it's apparently a shibboleth distinguishing between Irish-identifying Catholics ('haitch') and British-identifying Protestants ('aitch'). Suspect this also has nothing to do with the French :)
Fascinating. I didn't know that, despite my Belfast-born dad being the reason I'm a citizen.
Not uncommon in Australia too. As a very ordinary General Australian speaker I use haitch (and therefore a, not an). I'm probably not 100% consistent in this. It's one of many words where Australian English permits two equally valid pronunciations (e.g. 'dance').
I do cringe when people insist on "an + h" where the h is in fact invariably pronounced, as in "an historic occasion". You only ever seem to hear this from Americans trying to sound educated, which makes me suspect it's affected, not organic. I doubt the person giving a speech on 'an historic occasion' would then go home and give his kid 'an history book'.
You're quite right that the rules are clear and native speakers get them correct almost all of the time (I've not seen one get it wrong while speaking but some people were taught it as a spelling rule at school and so tend to write it incorrectly), but the difference is that different speakers pronounce the leading "H" differently.
In Australia we pronounce the H more like "heitch" while in the US people tend to pronounce it as "eytch" (IPA would probably more descriptive here, sorry!). In the UK it's a bit more of a mixed bag, as others have already elucidated.
You just never know these days. It could be a smartphone keyboard issue.
How much time should a person spend reviewing their comment before hitting reply?
There is a bar of quality each of us expects everyone else to follow. Sometimes we meet expectations, other times we ruffle feathers. How much should you even care?
If we all spew typos, you'll probably care less. If everyone else is carefully reviewing their posts, you might care.
In both cases, it makes no real difference unless the information being transferred is important to you (recipe, design doc, vs shitposts). How much mental friction can you tolerate?
Furthermroe, studeis shoew you can swap the arranrgment of most lettres (ecxept for the frist and last letetrs) in text and you stlil get the piont farily esaily.
> Funny tidbit: "missile" used to be an adjective, "a missile weapon" = "a weapon than can be sent/thrown".
Related bit of comedy:
> Note also that the correct term for 'a missile to be deployed against "anti-missile missiles"' is not "anti anti-missile missile." It's "anti anti-missile-missile missile." You're always supposed to have one more "missile" than "anti," because otherwise nothing will blow up.
The misspelling seems to be consistent (>200 times), though it seems like a quite common one. A 1982 DOS game was even titled "Missle Strike", long before Metroid was released.
BITD I used Protext word processor on Atari ST (and later DOS/Windows PC) which automatically justified monospace text. It also had a pretty good dictionary (all in 512KB of RAM) and I remember doing this word dance to get lines to flow better.
Most of us here still use a monospace justification tool daily: troff, run internally by man. (Now that I’m thinking about it, I seem to remember old distros shipping manpages as preformatted text in addition to roff source. Wonder when those disappeared?..)
I used to go to my computer laboratory in high school and at my mom's work to print out GameFAQ walkthroughs in the late 90s. They were excellent. I wrote this to remind myself of simple fun that's been superseded by grander ambitions, and sometimes I think I am wrong for choosing the latter.
"Michael Hart's email messages and blog posts had equal line length paragraphs in monospaced font: he chose the wording in such a way that each line had the same number of characters."
My dad told a story of a classmate in high school going through the effort of manually justifying text in a paper he wrote and being rewarded with a plagiarism accusation.
That was done by typing the whole paper twice, with added spaces the second time.
> At the same time, who among us didn’t nod in recognition at least, having once spent hours massaging a button UI string or a tooltip just to get it to fit under the certain width in a densely packed interface?
I did, and then I got a customer email about how they were using a display-zoom OS accessibility feature and things were truncated on their device. :')
Even as a backend dev who dabbles in frontend as a hobby - I get the view looking great on desktop, then a week later I open the site on mobile and am horrified
And here I at first thought the direction the original post was going was "here's how I got a LLM to do this automatically". Seems like it would not be so difficult. Might still be be a win over their innate dispositions.
> BoVeX gives us a controlled tradeoff between these two states. By changing how much it costs for the text to be semantically wrong, we have a dial that allows us to smoothly interpolate between Lorem Epsom and Donald Knuth.
"perhaps it would be best to let the browsers do it on screens, and typesetting software for printed materials, since they have access to the font, size, text region boundaries, it comes at the small cost that users don't actually get to read what an author wrote, but increasingly this is an LLM anyways, if its a website or legal contract alike"
I suspect LLMs would actually struggle significantly with doing it consistently if given purely as a prompt instruction, but you could always constrict the sampling to force words that create a legitimate chain or fine tune / RL in some signal that would assist with it.
You are right that this is hard from a prompt alone, but for a slightly stranger
reason than the obvious one. The model never sees columns. It sees tokens, and a
token can be one character or nine, so "make this line 80 wide" asks it to run a
hidden tally over pieces it cannot count by looking at them. Any slip early in a
line compounds, and there is no backspace key to reach for once it is committed.
That said, the failure is not total. A model can lean on a learned feel for line
length, pick shorter or longer synonyms to land close to the target, and rewrite
a sentence when it overshoots. It will not be perfect every time, but it lands a
lot more often than pure chance would suggest. The sampling trick you mention is
the real fix: mask each token that would push a line past the limit, and force a
newline the moment the count hits the mark. That converts a fuzzy instruction to
a hard constraint with zero training. Fine tuning helps too, but mostly sharpens
the same internal counter rather than replacing it. This reply is a small proof;
if any line here is off by one, feel free to consider your point demonstrated...
An raw LLM no, but given code execution it can do a good job. I had my Claude Sonnet write a sonnet in this form after 14 rounds of iteration with Python:
Deliberate distractions
from the functional end
goal benefit other arts
just as well, promoting
lateral thinking. Brian
Eno made a card deck of
"oblique strategies" to
help you out of blocks.
Including the making of the posts
into nice rectangular portions of
each thirty three characters wide ?
Not including the double space at
the beginning of each line or any
of the punctuation character ends .
I've definitely been guilty of wording my multi-line doc comments in a way that would ensure they'd flow without awkward right margins. I would have a macro in vim that would call the fmt program to reflow the comment to 79 (later 98) characters, and then would iterate on word choice until the comments looked good. Not exactly right-justified, but no very ragged edge either.
346 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 10.2 ms ] thread1 = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widows_and_orphans
I wonder if I was ever taught to write this way and forgot, but I feel like I just learned the terms for the first time.
https://youtu.be/d3bCel607lQ?t=1162
I've sometimes heard "orphan" to represent a single word left alone on a line at the end of a paragraph, but the terms are often confused and Carter could have used "widow" in that sense.
I'm curious to see what the scripts actually looked like.
Neither the human orphan nor the widow is fixed by your description; they simply aren't alone either more.
The child is still an orphan; the woman a widow.
This is an acceptable use of the term "widow". From the Oxford English Dictionary [0]:
> A short line of text (usually one consisting of one word or part of a word) which falls undesirably at the end of a paragraph, esp. one set at the top of a page or column.
But there are dozens of contradictory meanings for "widow" and "orphan" [1], so the definition that you gave isn't wrong either.
[0]: https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1579263894
[1]: https://tug.org/TUGboat/tb43-1/tb133chernoff-widows.pdf#subs... (Disclaimer: I'm the author of this article)
We're going to see more of this once diffusion language models mature. They won't match the exact length but will sure choose words to fix the set number of tokens.
Maybe I'm wrong but the whole thing felt very weird to me. Can't put my finger on it.. I want to say immature, but it's probably just unempathetic. I think my brain reached out for "immature" because I saw a lot of it among the "popular" kids at school.
[1]: https://www.boggsfiles.com/x-files-scripts-by-season/season-... [2]: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BQbfRmeq3FsajjYcEuqDHv0kf2B...
Maybe this was not the rule, but something that he had always strived for, so he felt the need to call it out as something cool?
The movie she mentioned in the anecdote was I Want To Believe. Here is the actual scanned screenplay, rather than re-typed:
https://lvei.net/wp-content/uploads/script-de-prod/The-X-Fil...
Just scroll through and look. In almost every paragraph or dialogue block, the last line ends very close to the right margin. Pretty much the only places that doesn't happen is when there's a single short line of dialogue by itself, meaning it doesn't wrap to a second line.
Looking through scripts on Boggsfiles, it's much more inconsistent, but it does happen, and perhaps more frequently in the later seasons. Here's one, from season 9; take a look at page 10 (page 13 in the PDF) for example, but it really happens throughout.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlnc2prPVgPLN4CQSiMQMvD2VSl...
E.B.'s soliloquy isn't in strict blank verse, but you don't have to squint too hard to find some metric structure.
To be fair, I don’t care. I loved the series and now I started to read the script and oh man, it’s like a really good novel. Very much prose in no foxed meter, but damn if it isn’t great prose. I might just start reading through Deadwood scripts, since I watched the series to death anyway.
[1] https://lithub.com/david-milch-on-language-and-obscenity-in-...
"Widows" (alone at the top) and "orphans" (alone at the bottom) are single lines cut off from the rest of a paragraph by a column/page break. The solution is generally just to fiddle with column/page breaks, which is purely typographical.
I'm sure that there's a distinct identity to X-Files dialog; it's just not due to this quirk.
I can totally see a fellow typography geek bragging about this to someone and them being horrified haha.
So I can’t super accept that these are geniuses - it was cheap TV.
In hindsight sure, whole cult following etc. but doesn’t mean it is well designed or even thought out.
A number of show of that era were filmed wide (16:9) and post processed / coloured / reframed and broadcast on TV in a box 4:3 aspect ratio
No visible boom mic operators, etc - careful eyes in the initial post production for TV phase saw to that.
Later wide screen releases were rushed with no real post production budget to address these and other issues - that's on the studios wanting a second grab at money, not the original creative teams.
Similar complaints abound for Buffy the Vampire Slayer and (IIRC) The Wire (?) and their wide screen releases.
I thought it was just my own OCD.
https://tom7.org/bovex/
> This presents a problem for the typical way that academic papers are written, which is to do all the work in a coffee-fueled fugue in the last few days before the deadline, then stay up all night writing the paper and finding citations for the pro-forma “related work” section which you did last but you know that the reviewers will insist upon
I have zero exposure to academia but chuckled because thats often what I do for blog posts :P
It's shockingly impressive.
I usually only did that when the text already was close to lining up that way, though.
But hey, we're thousands of years in and still finding creative ways to turn our time into something fun and amusing. Even with AI, I have no doubt we'll find new ways to prove we care.
* Widow: a short final line of a paragraph that gets stranded at the top of the next page or column.
* Orphan: a first line of a paragraph stranded at the bottom of a page or column.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurenkind_und_Schusterjunge
Edit: Also, LaTeX has specific penalties for those two: https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/32116
Also, the font used for the monospace examples in the post is a great kick to the nostalgia. Which one is it? It reminds me of https://int10h.org/oldschool-pc-fonts/fontlist/font?ibm_vga_...
[1] https://int10h.org/oldschool-pc-fonts/fontlist/font?ibm_vga_...
I choose to believe that the author was channeling the spirit of Noah Webster as a deliberate champion of phonetic spelling reform.
“It is a damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any word.”
As a rather, well... "creative" speller I blame Webster for locking things down and ruining it for the rest of us.
A dictionary would be all but useless, if it included words used for 2 months, and essentially never used in that context, way, or spelling again. That sort of means teenage slang probably shouldn't appear, and amusingly if it did appear in the dictionary, it'd probably be less 'cool' to use that slang.
And alt-spellings for 'being kool' aren't what I'd call a dictionary thing.
Put another way, slang is in the dictionary, but only long-standing slang. Such as 'cool'. I'd see it more as temp slang->more used->enters dictionary-> eventually the 'slang' note is dropped, it's just language.
I'd want to see a word used for a few years, before it enters. And really, some slang morphs endlessly, like a fire flickering and then going out. How do you capture that? Even online, it'd be out of date once published.
And lots of slang is colloquial. Do you care to add slang language used across dozens of regions in the US?
I recall 20 years ago, Oxford Dictionary took a literal physical trip across Canada, and made the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, filled with 2200 'Canadianisms'. Akin to what you're saying here, if people are using it, it should be in there. But these were things Canadians had been saying for decades...
Anyhow.
I guess my point is, the kid was wrong because transitory has no value in the dictionary. His special words won't be used by even him, in a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthographic_depth
To best be enjoyed with a muscular buddy.
https://focusonbelgium.be/en/Do%20you%20know%20these%20Belgi...
Sorry? How do you think people pronounce words such as truffle / turtle / tremble / pickle / maple / rubble / etc. etc. etc.?
You can just look this up. The usual way to write "truffle" in a phonetic manner is of course /tɹʌfl̩/. You'll note that there is no vowel in the second syllable at all; it consists of just the L. (And that's what the small mark below the L means - "syllabic".) This is the standard phonetic analysis.
You might also notice that the IPA differs from your proposed spelling in several other ways. One, the difference between "ɹ" and "r", has no relevance in a discussion of English. But the difference between "f" and "ff" is more significant, and the difference between "u" (the vowel in GOOSE) and "ʌ" (the vowel in STRUT) is of critical importance.
And this is still just a phonemic transcription. Phonetically, you'd expect the word to be [tʃɹʌfl̩], with the initial consonant matching that of "chill" and not "till".
All of these are conventions of written English. Written "tr" is pronounced as if it were written "chr". Pronounced [tʃɹ] is always spelled "tr" and never spelled "chr". The difference in vowel quality between "moping" and "mopping" is indicated, as you probably already noticed, by the doubling of the consonant written after the vowel, and this is also the reason for the double "f" in "truffle". Why do we write an extra "f" when what we mean is that we're changing the pronunciation of the vowel before it? Not for phonetic reasons.
And what do you know, there's a standard spelling of syllabic L in English too, and that standard spelling is "-le", not "-el". That spelling is phonetic in exactly the same way that using "m" to spell the initial consonant of "mat" is phonetic - it is the established mapping between the orthography and the pronunciation.
However to come back to IPA and "truffle", Wiktionary (not a definitive source I know, but there is no definitive source whatsoever about anything regarding the English language) does that say "truffle" rymes with /-ʌfəl/ with a schwa right there between the f and the l. The pronunciation of the word itself in Wiktionary is indicated with a syllable break rather than a schwa, which I would absolutely dispute, and indeed it looks like Cambridge dictionary[1] puts a schwa there in addition to the syllable break.
It's also written "truffel" in Dutch for what it's worth.
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/truffle [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pronunciation/english/truff...
No, that's not what I said at all. Stipulating that the -ent and the -p- are silent in the French word comptent, there is also a French word comte of identical pronunciation, which limits the amount of phonetic information that the silent -ent and -p- could be carrying. (In fact, I believe the verb ending may be realized in certain cases, as the "silent N" ending the English indefinite article is often realized.)
The doubling of the "f" in truffle is nothing like that. The hypothetical word trufle would be pronounced differently. That difference wouldn't have anything to do with the F, but nevertheless it is indicated by the spelling; the spelling is conveying phonetic information.
This is also the case for the spelling -le. It represents an English sound. It is the spelling you would expect a trained speaker to produce for a novel word featuring that sound. You can't get any more phonetic than that.
> Wiktionary (not a definitive source I know, but there is no definitive source whatsoever about anything regarding the English language) does that say "truffle" rymes with /-ʌfəl/ with a schwa right there between the f and the l.
I'll return to this in a moment.
> The pronunciation of the word itself in Wiktionary is indicated with a syllable break rather than a schwa,
Just to be clear, the "syllable break" is the period between the f and the syllabic l. The symbol that tells you the l constitutes a syllable in itself is the small mark underneath it.
> which I would absolutely dispute
Why? That's how the word is pronounced.
> and indeed it looks like Cambridge dictionary puts a schwa there in addition to the syllable break.
We're back to the first point!
First, let's observe that there is absolutely no dispute over the idea that "truffle" is two syllables long. The presence of a syllable break is universally agreed.
Second, the reason wiktionary gives a more accurate rendition of the pronunciation is that it's mostly maintained by enthusiasts.
The convention of dictionaries is cited by wikipedia:
> Many dialects of English may use syllabic consonants in words such as sudden [ˈsʌd.n̩], awful [ˈɔːfɫ̩] and rhythm [ˈɹɪðm̩], which English dictionaries' respelling systems usually treat as realizations of underlying sequences of schwa and a consonant (for example, /ˈsʌd.ən/).
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabic_consonant )
This is a convention, no less than the spelling "-le" is. It is advantageous in dictionaries, where you'd like each syllable to be more or less pronounceable on its own; the grapheme "-le" can't occur in isolation. The phonetic analysis is what I already told you it is, and what wikipedia repeats in that quote.
(In the case of sudden, the difference is crystal clear - if you pronounce it without detaching your tongue from the roof of your mouth between the /d/ and the /n/, you can only be producing a syllabic n. You can also do this test with subtle, but not with truffle, since /f/ doesn't share the same articulatory properties that /d/, /t/, and /l/ do.)
I imagine that GP's reasoning is that in writing "missile", the consonant is followed by a vowel, while phonetically the vowel is followed by a consonant.
The issue is further compounded by the fact that there's more than one common pronunciation of "missile".
I don't disagree with the latter point, but the former doesn't make sense to me; unless you're saying that there wouldn't be enough phonemes representable by the letters to define spellings for all English words? In my mind, the entire point of a conversation like this is hypothetical changes to the language to make it phonetically consistent; of course it isn't right now, or we wouldn't need to have a conversation.
You've correctly identified what my reasoning is, but you seem to be circularly saying that since English isn't currently phonetic, it's impossible to come up with a spelling for it using sounds that roughly resemble the common sounds letters are using today in order to make it phonetic. I guess I don't know that it's literally impossible, but I don't think it's self-evident that it's not possible, and I think it's fairly straightforward changing the spelling of words ending in "le" to "el" would be more consistent to how "le" is used in other places in words where changing their spelling would be more difficult (e.g. there's not really any clear way to spell "less" without preserving "le" at the beginning).
You're definitely right that I hadn't considered that some dialects pronounce "missile" in a way where it's pronounced differently, but I'd argue that the obvious example (British pronunciation) was already basically ignored by the comment I was responding to, so I didn't really introduce the inconsistency.
I don't see why that argument is supposed to make sense on its own terms. The system we have now is that -le and le- are different. You want to reform -le to be spelled -el because its pronunciation is closer to that of (-)el- than to le-.
But making that spelling change will reduce the "inconsistency" you don't like that exists between -le and le- precisely by introducing a new inconsistency between -el and el-. Why is that supposed to be an improvement of any kind?
Then you're inventing a phonetic alphabet that happens to look like the English alphabet. That's what makes discussions like this are pointless. No one has established a phonetic definition of "le" or "el", which is the only basis according to which one can decide which is phonetically more appropriate.
In my mind, the natural phonetic spelling of "le" is an L sound followed by an E sound. Works like "truffle" and "turtle" have an E sound followed by an L sound. I don't think that's phonetic.
I was very vaguely notionally Church of England until age 11, although still had to go to Chapel daily from 12-17. I have never been to Mass and I don't really know what goes on in a Mass. I'm not even sure if Anglicans have Mass.
My local Canon certainly had plenty of small-m mass: big lad. Nonetheless, when he scattered my father's ashes in the sea, he got caught by a wave, and proved that despite this he could run backwards up a shingle beach, wearing wet robes, at surprising speed.
"how people pronounce words ending in that"
You did not restrict which people you were talking about, and that's a critical omission. Nobody in my daily life, in real life where I live or on TV or radio, would ever say "missal" when they meant "missile".
It is always fun when you notice where someone is from based on secondary clues like that -- my favourite is the choice of "a" or "an" where it is ambiguous (for instance, I recently ran across "an HTTP request" where I would've said "a HTTP request").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth
Well, that, and Kiwis tend to say "hey bro" a lot ;)
Beached Whale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdVHZwI8pcA
Those are also interesting but it feels a bit more special to me when it's a secondary speech characteristic because it feels a bit more like a clue in a detective novel -- it almost feels like you can hear inside the author's head and how they vocalise while they write.
I have only heard people say H T T P, as specific letters when pronouncing HTTP, and thus the a or an should be based on how one would pronounce the letter "H". And H would be pronounced as "aitch". Starts with an a -> vowel sound -> should be "an".
But I'm a non native english speaker, so I'm happy to be proven wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H#Name
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnq96W9jtuw&t=66s
There was a lot of discourse about the (then declining) aristocracy and their mannerisms, accents and so on, in the 1950s and 1960s. In particular, discussion of "U" (upper class) versus "non-U" English, highlighting the differences in language usage between classes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_EnglishThe Pythons were highly attuned to this class distinction and wrote it into their sketches. Another good sketch is an upper-class family distinguishing "woody" and "tinny" sounds, but the whole sketch's premise is to laugh at the odd mannerisms of the upper-classes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3-51DhOzHE
Forever, I'm finding it very entertaining
Expensively educated people might pronounce French loanwords by dropping the h in an ostentatiously French way (and maybe making homage rhyme with fromage) to showcase their etymology knowledge and are more likely to use the grammatical convention[1] of prefixing them with 'an' rather than 'a' even even when sounding the 'h'. But the "correct", RP way their expensive education teaches them to enunciate as English words is with a leading h and has been for a century or so, except 'honour' (and 'honest'), which pretty much no native speaker pronounces the 'h' in.
[1]now usually an historic grammatical convention ;-) it survived longer than the silent 'h' in 'historic' in conventional English speech though...
On the other hand a leading 'h' is routinely dropped in spoken English in most words in many British dialects spoken by less expensively educated people, which has no more to do with French etymology than the glottal stop that means some of the same accents also drop a lot of 't's from the middle of words. That's where all the twentieth century jokes involving people overcorrecting by inappropriately adding 'h' when trying to speak 'proper' come from
As for the name of the letter, according to the OED and RP dialect the sort of often expensive schools that emphasize correct pronunciation, it's is definitely called 'aitch' in British English. And has been for several hundred years. Not all people who pronounce it 'aitch' are "upper class" (there's a rapper with the stage name Aitch) but all people who are "upper class" are taught to pronounce it 'aitch'. On the other hand, it's a bit weird that the name of the letter doesn't contain the letter, so lots of British people whose education doesn't involve teachers emphasising The Correct Way To Speak feel the name for the letter 'h' should start with the letter 'h', hence 'haitch'.
Also, Irish dialects call it 'haitch'; in Northern Ireland it's apparently a shibboleth distinguishing between Irish-identifying Catholics ('haitch') and British-identifying Protestants ('aitch'). Suspect this also has nothing to do with the French :)
So "upper class" learn to enunciate the letter 'h' without an 'h' in it, but are taught to pronounce it more or less everywhere else (with a few quirks to keep them honest) and others more likely to drop the 'h' sound from other words but add it to the letter name. Yes, English pronunication is weird
For those desperate for even more 'h' discourse, seee: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/h_n
> Also, Irish dialects call it 'haitch'; in Northern Ireland it's apparently a shibboleth distinguishing between Irish-identifying Catholics ('haitch') and British-identifying Protestants ('aitch'). Suspect this also has nothing to do with the French :)
Fascinating. I didn't know that, despite my Belfast-born dad being the reason I'm a citizen.
I do cringe when people insist on "an + h" where the h is in fact invariably pronounced, as in "an historic occasion". You only ever seem to hear this from Americans trying to sound educated, which makes me suspect it's affected, not organic. I doubt the person giving a speech on 'an historic occasion' would then go home and give his kid 'an history book'.
In Australia we pronounce the H more like "heitch" while in the US people tend to pronounce it as "eytch" (IPA would probably more descriptive here, sorry!). In the UK it's a bit more of a mixed bag, as others have already elucidated.
How much time should a person spend reviewing their comment before hitting reply?
There is a bar of quality each of us expects everyone else to follow. Sometimes we meet expectations, other times we ruffle feathers. How much should you even care?
If we all spew typos, you'll probably care less. If everyone else is carefully reviewing their posts, you might care.
In both cases, it makes no real difference unless the information being transferred is important to you (recipe, design doc, vs shitposts). How much mental friction can you tolerate?
Furthermroe, studeis shoew you can swap the arranrgment of most lettres (ecxept for the frist and last letetrs) in text and you stlil get the piont farily esaily.
Apparently, I googled, “expended ordnance” is the term.
Same with cereals, "cereal" was an adjective that meant "relative to the goddess Ceres" then "relative to bread/wheat". "Cereal plants" -> cereals.
It's called "nominalization (or substantivization) by ellipsis".
Related bit of comedy:
> Note also that the correct term for 'a missile to be deployed against "anti-missile missiles"' is not "anti anti-missile missile." It's "anti anti-missile-missile missile." You're always supposed to have one more "missile" than "anti," because otherwise nothing will blow up.
-- https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2005-03-16
https://gundam.fandom.com/wiki/Neutron_Jammer_Canceller
I wonder how often *teleports behind you* shows up in space operas.
I know I couldn't today.
Manual: https://www.atarimania.com/st/files/protext_5_04_arnor.pdf
Screenshot of manual section: https://jumpshare.com/share/jOnMu7M36AOEWyoL0QDl
It’s not too hard if you try, once you get in the groove :-)
https://hart.pglaf.org/
From Wikipedia:
"Michael Hart's email messages and blog posts had equal line length paragraphs in monospaced font: he chose the wording in such a way that each line had the same number of characters."
That was done by typing the whole paper twice, with added spaces the second time.
I did, and then I got a customer email about how they were using a display-zoom OS accessibility feature and things were truncated on their device. :')
See also: localizing your interface to German
> BoVeX gives us a controlled tradeoff between these two states. By changing how much it costs for the text to be semantically wrong, we have a dial that allows us to smoothly interpolate between Lorem Epsom and Donald Knuth.
The autumn wind moves slow across the field,
and every falling leaf now yields its fight.
The summer gold at last has ceased to yield,
and short days now give way to longer night.
I walk alone beside a calm and quiet stream,
and watch it slowly carry every fallen leaf.
I think of you as some half-forgotten dream,
and taste again that same old, bitter grief.
The silent stars come out to watch it still,
and pale moonlight falls gently on the hill.
A lonesome owl calls out from past the mill,
and time moves on, unhurried and calm, until
the dawn returns to paint the sky brand new,
and I still recall the love I lost with you.