Language desk
< September 25	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 26[edit]

Wizard of Oz lyrics[edit]

"The Merry Old Land of Oz claims:

There are not very many English words that rhyme with "Oz" (homophone of "ahz"), so the song has a number of words that are similar, and whose pronunciation is altered to rhyme: "strahz" instead of "straws", "brahz" instead of "brass" (or perhaps "bronze"), "clahz" instead of "claws", etc.

But to me, and my Canadian accent, all these words rhyme. I can imagine there are American accents where they do not rhyme; I remember being similarly bewildered that "walk" and "talk" do not rhyme for some Americans so I assume the same thing is happening here. But I am having trouble pronouncing them so they don't. These transcriptions don't help, either. Can anyone enlighten me? Adam Bishop 06:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an American, they rhyme for me too, with the exception of brass/bronze, neither of which do. Seems odd. -Elmer Clark 07:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-American, I wouldn't pronounce "Oz" as "ahz" to begin with, but I wouldn't rhyme it with straws, claws or brass either (and I wouldn't rhyme claws/straws and brass - they rhyme with pours and pass, respectively). "Walk" and "talk" definitely rhyme. FiggyBee 07:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking with a southeastern English accent, the only word that rhymes with Oz is because. It does not rhyme with straws or claws (although they rhyme with each other) or with brass, which rhymes with class and arse but not with mass. (How I wish I knew how to get the IPA characters to illustrate this more clearly.)

In conclusion, to state categorically in the article that Oz is a homophone of ahz is yet another example of the American bias that permeates Wikipedia. If it's not true in Canada, or Britain, or countless other places, then it shouldn't be stated as fact. 80.254.147.52 11:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realized that The Wizard of Oz was a Canadian-British production. (In case that's not clear: American-bashing is not Wikipedian.) More to the point, I can think of only one word, "ahs", that rhymes in my USAn dialect, and that's really a homophone, not a rhyme. --Milkbreath 11:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The American bias that permeates Wikipedia"??? You mean like the policy-violating moves of Humor to Humour and Yogurt to Yoghurt that cannot now be corrected? Anyway, regardless of the nationalities of the production companies, the actors were mostly Americans. Since most North Americans have the father-bother merger, the most commonly repeated rhymes of Oz in the song (namely tra-la-las and la-di-das) rhyme perfectly. "Straws" and "claws" only rhyme for people with the cot-caught merger; "brass" doesn't rhyme with "Oz" for anyone. (I'm reminded of the rhyme in "On the Street Where You Live" between rather and bother which only works if you combine the RP pronunciation of rather with the American pronunciation of bother.) As for the article, the claim that instigated this question is unsourced and smells like original research, so I'm off to remove it. —An gr 15:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the anon was intending to be rude, but it certainly didn't read that way to me. I read their comment on ""Oz" (homophone of "ahz")" to be pointing out that it is not true for everyone, so the sentence should indicate that it is a homophone as sung in the film or some such, or that 'Oz is pronounced 'ahz' in the film'. As to the bias, everyone tends to think Wikipedia is biased against their variety of English, since they tend to notice where it differs. On a different note, I differentiate between cot and caught (they do not merge for me), and yet straws and claws rhyme. Skittle 17:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant straws and claws only rhyme with Oz for people who have the merger. I think they rhyme with each other for everyone. —An gr 18:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, makees more sense. I was repeating 'straws/claws' over and over, trying to find a non-rhyme... 'stros/claws'? :) Skittle 23:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See cot-caught merger, Father-bother merger, trap–bath split. jnestorius^(talk) 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW "We're Off to See the Wizard" rhymes was and because with both Oz and does, reflecting both of the common American pronunciations of was and because. jnestorius^(talk) 12:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of another rhyme, the girl's name Roz, as in Roz Doyle. StuRat 15:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or "bras". Which would be a different kind of movie, I suppose. - Nunh-huh 17:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or "bahs", along the line of "ahs" above. Is a room full of Scrooges full of bahs humbug? Tesseran 23:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, sorry, I should have said that all the words except "brass" rhyme, since that one is different for me. Adam Bishop 22:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is regional even within the U.S. In New York (and much of the northeast) "cot" and "caught" are quite distinct vocally; on the West Coast they are not. I'm not sure about other regions, I'm not expert on this, but I'm a transplanted NY-er who lives in Seattle. - Jmabel | Talk 23:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't possibly comment. :) -- JackofOz 23:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common problem that in some parts of the English-speaking world two words rhyme, but in others they don't. In Somerset, I've often heard people say "Wales, the country" and "Wells, the place", because in the local dialect the two names sound the same. In the North of England, Newcastle rhymes with 'tassle', but in the South it rhymes with 'parcel'. Xn4 00:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've reminded me of the time a California teenager told me "we're going well-washing" and eventually made me understand that she meant "whale-watching". —Tamfang 06:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

translation into Latin[edit]

Hi, I work at a Renaissance Faire and have been asked if I can find any way to translate three sentences into proper Latin. None of my contacts have been able to help. Can anyone out there help me? Some of them are risque, but all are rather punnish--those Elizabethan English LOVED their bawdy word plays! Thanks, and here they are:

First phrase: More horn, less filling (Reference: this almost one-gallon capacity buffalo horn tankard needs to be filled less often than a smaller one would.)

Second phrase: Chastity belts fitted here A graffitum scrawled on the chimney over the blacksmith's forge.

Third phrase: The harder the tip, the deeper the penetration. (Referring to quality of steel used in forging an arrowhead, but double entendre fully intended) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.114.105 (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Plus cornui, minus replendi. 2. Baltei castitatis hic cincti (although that's not quite what you do with a chastity belt, I guess). 3. Quo aculeus fortis, eo introitus altus. Sorry, that's roughly off the top of my head, with some further research I'm sure we can find something better. Adam Bishop 22:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. How about Quo cacumen durus, eo introitus penitus? Xn4 00:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, perhaps the gerundive is better in 2 - cingendi, since it refers to belts that have not yet been fitted. And the medieval term for "chastity belt" appears to be "cingulum castitatis"; therefore, "cingula castitatis hic cingenda". Adam Bishop 01:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.48 (talk) [reply]

"How do you like my paragraph?"[edit]

Here something that I would think may have both grammatical (and context) errors. What do you think? Put it another way, what word or form in the paragraph do you believe I can improve upon?

Here it is:

Mr. Davis had enough things to worry about instead of accumulating his ravaged desk into something so capacious and immense he couldn't organize it. His day at the office had been constant trauma, but he still didn't bethink it ranked Number 1 among everything else that turned from pink and red roses into dark and dying flowers. His new Nissan Altima being fender bendered on the way highway to Route 16, his grandmother spilling a boiling cup of coffee onto his lap, Bingo piddling all in his work review(explaining the deadly surge of furious fire from Mr. Simmons, his boss), and last but now least Davis's wife asking for a divorce. The last one, he himself tried to prevent. He morbidly sits on the white couch of their little eight room house. He has no clue as to why Danietta is walking fast ---so fast, and quick ---- around the house desperately flipping through magazines, periodicals, books, and newspapers. He watches with his chin drooping down to the uppermost of his lap, tired and mostly stressed after the agonal lax at the office and to hear Mr. Simmons roar. He could still hear it if the room was silent and there was no one flipping papers around the house or speaking in mutterered phrases which didn't really mean anything but complete gibberish. Yet, this gibberish soon became it's own roars, louder than ever.

--75.44.155.52 22:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love it. I would get rid of the apostrophe in "its" and maybe add a space after "review", but that's all. --Milkbreath 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"accumulating"? "bethink"? "fast and quick"? Is "lax" a noun (other than Norse for salmon)? I'd hyphenate "fender-bendered" (or make it "fender-bent"); drop "highway"; hyphenate "eight-room house"; "mutterered" is misspellelled. —Tamfang 23:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, I think it's overwritten. I had trouble following the long sentences, and I felt the tenses were mixed up in places. Unnecessarily obscure words are used a little too much, too. That said, it definately portrays an strong sense of despair (or something like that) which is what you're aiming for? Don't feel you have to take my opinion to heart - I'm a science student! Aaadddaaammm 23:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts:

The string of words "His new Nissan Altima ... asking for a divorce" is a series of participial phrases and is not a valid sentence on its own. You could easily fix this by inserting a dash between this and the previous sentence (and adjusting the punctuation, of course).
" ... last but now least Davis's wife asking for a divorce" doesn't quite make sense to me - maybe the "now" is better placed after "wife". Otherwise it reads as if this request for a divorce was previously a more significant matter but has now been relegated to lesser significance because of more recent events. (Later thought: Maybe you mistyped the word "not", in which case it makes perfect sense where it is when you correct the spelling)
"The uppermost of his lap" is a slightly odd expression. Maybe "part" could follow "uppermost".
"... after the agonal lax at the office and to hear Mr. Simmons roar" is a non-parallel construction - maybe try "and hearing Mr. Simmons roar".
"He could still hear it if the room was silent and there was no one flipping papers around the house or speaking in mutterered phrases which didn't really mean anything but complete gibberish." - I think this tries to contain too many concepts in the one sentence. The point I think you're trying to get across is that he could still hear it if the room was silent and there was no one flipping papers around the house or speaking in muttered phrases. Whether those muttered phrases were intelligible or otherwise is not relevant. If they were in fact complete gibberish, that would be a new topic requiring a new sentence.
Best of luck with whatever this is for. -- JackofOz 04:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't accumulate a singular item, so accumulating a desk is wrong. You would accumulate things on the desk. And what makes the desk ravaged? Did somebody take an axe to it? Others have commented on bethink -- that's medieval. And the second half of the "bethink" sentence rambles on so much that it makes no sense and kind of falls apart. The Nissan Altima sentence rambles without a verb, so there really isn't a sentence there. And it's last but not least. Bingo piddled on his work review (whatever that is). You switch from past tense to present in mid-paragraph. I don't think of an eight room house as little, so that throws me off. If his chin droops to his lap, he's quite a contortionist. "agonal lax" is meaningless. And there should probably be at least two, if not three, paragraphs here. (Don't mind me, I'm an editor. :) ) Corvus cornix 18:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sew what's new?[edit]

Why don't "sew" and "new" rhyme? Dismas|^(talk) 22:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyme is determined by pronunciation. /soʊ/ and /nyu/ don't rhyme because the last stressed syllables of these words have different vowels. Or are you asking why "sew" is written like it is? I suspect that (as for "shew") it represents an earlier pronunciation that is now obsolete – although you can hear /səʊ/ in British English. --Lambiam 22:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "sew" rhymes with "too" for some speakers of British English, myself included. --Kjoonlee 00:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the vowel /u/ or /oʊ/? Tesseran 01:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to expand on what I asked, if they're spelled the same, except the first letter of course, then why wouldn't they be pronounced the same? So you're saying that sew comes from an earlier word "shew"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dismas (talk • contribs) 04:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Although spelling and pronunciation were closely linked in earlier forms of English, before there was a standard, English has since diverted from these spellings. This is further complicated by irregularity in the choosing of standard spellings. In some cases, one pronunciation was chosen as standard, yet the standard spelling was based on a different pronunciation. This is most obvious in the word 'colonel', where the spelling was standardised from an Italian borrowing, but the pronunciation was standardised off a French(?) borrowing of the same word. I don't think they used to rhyme, despite the spelling.Steewi 05:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, "new" is /nju/, not /nyu/.--Estrellador* 14:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to Tesseran) In my case, sew is [suː] and too is [tuː]. I might pronounce sew as [səʊ] sometimes, but I'd always say "[suːɪŋ] needle" and never "[səʊɪŋ] needle." --Kjoonlee 15:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I nevertheless say [səʊn] instead of [suːn]. --Kjoonlee 15:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they do rhyme, just to the eye, and not to the ear. They are called, appropriately, "eye rhymes."--Fuhghettaboutit 15:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(In reply to Dismas:) 'Shew' is an formerly common spelling of 'show': the OED has examples up to 1880, and I'm sure it survived into the 20th century. --ColinFine 22:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it did. I have a book published by Cambridge University Press in 1906 that uses the spelling "shew". —An gr 04:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]