American voices

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Ein Heldenleben
    Full Member
    • Apr 2014
    • 6962

    #31
    "To boldly go where no man has gone before"
    "To go boldly where no man has gone before"

    The former sounds “better” either because that’s what we’re used to from hearing it a thousand times
    Or
    Because the former is closer to an iambic pentameter ( de dum , de dum ) which thanks to Shakespeare (though it predates him ) is etched into the English speaking collective aesthetic consciousness. Even though the line is 11 syllables not 10 - like a lot of late Shakespeare..

    PS there’s nothing wrong with split infinitives or saying fewer when the pedants say you should use less

    Comment

    • Bryn
      Banned
      • Mar 2007
      • 24688

      #32
      Originally posted by Heldenleben View Post
      "To boldly go where no man has gone before"
      "To go boldly where no man has gone before"

      The former sounds “better” either because that’s what we’re used to from hearing it a thousand times
      Or
      Because the former is closer to an iambic pentameter ( de dum , de dum ) which thanks to Shakespeare (though it predates him ) is etched into the English speaking collective aesthetic consciousness. Even though the line is 11 syllables not 10 - like a lot of late Shakespeare..

      PS there’s nothing wrong with split infinitives or saying fewer when the pedants say you should use less
      Fair enough, more or fewer.

      Comment

      • french frank
        Administrator/Moderator
        • Feb 2007
        • 30507

        #33
        Originally posted by Heldenleben View Post
        "To boldly go where no man has gone before"
        "To go boldly where no man has gone before"

        The former sounds “better” either because that’s what we’re used to from hearing it a thousand times
        Or
        Because the former is closer to an iambic pentameter ( de dum , de dum )
        They resonate differently. The first is rhythmically easier, the second from the view of sense, puts the stress on 'boldly', rather than 'go' - which seems preferable. I'm not concerned about a split infinitive.

        From a purely observational viewpoint, I think most people simply have very little feeling for language and in many cases don't even realise when they have replaced the common English usage by the American (though I suppose some may adopt the American form deliberately, for various reasons, as they deliberately seize on neologisms with attractive associations).
        It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

        Comment

        • Serial_Apologist
          Full Member
          • Dec 2010
          • 37851

          #34
          Originally posted by DracoM View Post
          Or the lifted cheekbones Islington 'berks' for 'books'?
          This seems to have crept in as a RP derivative in the past 30-40 years, along with pronouncing words such as "you" almost as "yee", or at any rate the french "u" sound, which certainly wasn't the case in the 1960s when no English person could achieve the French "u", only a Scot or someone from a limited area of Lancashire could. And "due" for "do", which presumably reflects American or Australian TV soaps influence. For me, in the English RP context, this sounds like toddler speak. Few ("feeoo") upper class people or pretenders speak the old way any more, though cockneys doooo* - Charles Brandreth being one of the feeooo.

          Comment

          • Eine Alpensinfonie
            Host
            • Nov 2010
            • 20575

            #35
            Originally posted by french frank View Post
            They resonate differently. The first is rhythmically easier, the second from the view of sense, puts the stress on 'boldly', rather than 'go' - which seems preferable. I'm not concerned about a split infinitive.

            From a purely observational viewpoint, I think most people simply have very little feeling for language and in many cases don't even realise when they have replaced the common English usage by the American (though I suppose some may adopt the American form deliberately, for various reasons, as they deliberately seize on neologisms with attractive associations).
            I've never really understood the split infinitive problem. A split indicative seems to go unnoticed.

            Comment

            • Eine Alpensinfonie
              Host
              • Nov 2010
              • 20575

              #36
              Originally posted by jayne lee wilson View Post
              Is the split infinitive really an Americanism? It goes back centuries in English writing and usage. ..... why is it seen to be so wrong, anyway, in terms of meaning or coherence, or even elegance? What would such a "rule" against it be for?
              It was Dryden who invented the rule, all based on the premise that you can't have a split infinitive in Latin. A very shaky logic.

              Comment

              • french frank
                Administrator/Moderator
                • Feb 2007
                • 30507

                #37
                Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
                This seems to have crept in as a RP derivative in the past 30-40 years,
                Is it a regional/Metropolitan/broadcasting development? I don't hear anything like this (and we don't all speak Bristle down by 'ere ). If so, it simply creates an alternative 'London accent'. Among younger people I hear much more of the 'sloppyish' glottal stops, dropping of final consonants etc. which is neither regional nor RP but a fusion with a general demotic.
                It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                Comment

                • Ein Heldenleben
                  Full Member
                  • Apr 2014
                  • 6962

                  #38
                  Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View Post
                  It was Dryden who invented the rule, all based on the premise that you can't have a split infinitive in Latin. A very shaky logic.
                  Didn’t know that . He was probably the most conservative poet ever so it’s not surprising

                  Comment

                  • jayne lee wilson
                    Banned
                    • Jul 2011
                    • 10711

                    #39
                    "To boldly go where no man has gone before"
                    "To go boldly where no man has gone before"

                    You really need to read these aloud to hear and feel why the first one works better: the strongest stresses are on the crucial phrases - boldly go/no man/gone before. The emphasis is on the very words that evoke the quest, the adventure, the risk. They are also natural to the iamb, apart - again crucially - from "no man".... I need hardly underline the poetic aptness of that in the context of space exploration.

                    The second is immediately clumsy, as the stress lands upon "go bold", against both the natural speech and poetic stresses, followed by an awkward pause for breath after the weak and now redundant-sounding "ly". One can't flow through into "where" as fluidly. After which the potential iambic impact of the line is hard to recover and peters out inexpressively. It sounds like bad writing, or bad, unskilful poetry; which is exactly what it is.

                    Recited aloud and more expressively with practice, you also note how the best version of the line divides into three continuous elements: To boldy go/where no man has gone/before...

                    So again, the music and the meaning follow each other: the music and the meaning are at one. One of the very essences of good poetry.
                    I could add that a vital point about meter is, precisely, its skilful contradiction: you can use the technique of writing against the stress, to throw the spotlight on the main message ("no man", in our present example); but you must still make music out of it....
                    Last edited by jayne lee wilson; 06-01-21, 18:46.

                    Comment

                    • muzzer
                      Full Member
                      • Nov 2013
                      • 1194

                      #40
                      I find the voices of the presenters on WQXR and WBGO calm and reassuring in comparison to those of many on daytime R3. Granted it’s their nighttime when I’m listening and R3’s TTN team is as good. American tones lend themselves to the M in FM.

                      Comment

                      • Ein Heldenleben
                        Full Member
                        • Apr 2014
                        • 6962

                        #41
                        Originally posted by jayne lee wilson View Post
                        "To boldly go where no man has gone before"
                        "To go boldly where no man has gone before"

                        You really need to read these aloud to hear and feel why the first one works better: the strongest stresses are on the crucial phrases - boldly go/no man/gone before. The emphasis is on the very words that evoke the quest, the adventure, the risk. They are also natural to the iamb, apart - again crucially - from "no man".... I need hardly underline the poetic aptness of that in the context of space exploration.

                        The second is immediately clumsy, as the stress lands upon "go bold", against both the natural speech and poetic stresses, followed by an awkward pause for breath after the weak and now redundant-sounding "ly". One can't flow through into "where" as fluidly. After which the potential iambic impact of the line is hard to recover and peters out inexpressively. It sounds like bad writing, or bad, unskilful poetry; which is exactly what it is.

                        Recited aloud and more expressively with practice, you also note how the best version of the line divides into three continuous elements: To boldy go/where no man has gone/before...

                        So again, the music and the meaning follow each other: the music and the meaning are at one. One of the very essences of good poetry.
                        I agree with your metrical analysis but it doesn’t answer the underlying question of why iambs sound “better”
                        I think Shakespeare might have written
                        To boldly go where man has never gone..

                        Comment

                        • jayne lee wilson
                          Banned
                          • Jul 2011
                          • 10711

                          #42
                          Originally posted by Heldenleben View Post
                          I agree with your metrical analysis but it doesn’t answer the underlying question of why iambs sound “better”
                          I think Shakespeare might have written
                          To boldly go where man has never gone..
                          Well with your rewrite, the emphasis is different and the meaning likewise: focussing on "never gone" (because of the even stresses on ne-ver"). The alien-ness and remoteness are emphasised, rather than the human presence ("no man") in uncharted territory. Also, the disruption to the too-regular iamb is only slight on "never", so less memorable or resonant than "no man". I don't think Shaxpear would have left it unrevised for long!

                          Whoever said that iambs sound better anyway? Better than what? Trochees or dactyls, or....? A meter followed too regularly soon becomes very flat and dull.

                          Lovely, utterly masterful example of how to do it.....

                          "Unthrifty loveliness, why dost thou spend
                          Upon thyself thy beauty’s legacy?"

                          (Sonnet 4)
                          Last edited by jayne lee wilson; 06-01-21, 19:03.

                          Comment

                          • Eine Alpensinfonie
                            Host
                            • Nov 2010
                            • 20575

                            #43
                            Originally posted by jayne lee wilson View Post
                            "To boldly go where no man has gone before"
                            In Star Trek, the Next Generation, it was amended to the more politically correct "To boldly go where no-one has gone before".

                            Comment

                            • jayne lee wilson
                              Banned
                              • Jul 2011
                              • 10711

                              #44
                              Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View Post
                              In Star Trek, the Next Generation, it was amended to the more politically correct "To boldly go where no-one has gone before".
                              Often tempted to do this sort of thing myself.... but sadly it spoils the music here. "no-one" tails off too much. Weaker semantically too - very commonplace.

                              It's not perfect, but I think "to boldy go where no soul has gone before" works better in context.
                              Last edited by jayne lee wilson; 07-01-21, 13:37.

                              Comment

                              • oddoneout
                                Full Member
                                • Nov 2015
                                • 9306

                                #45
                                Originally posted by CallMePaul View Post
                                What annoy me are two Americanisms that I hear more and more on TV and radio (not just BBC stations). The first is split infinitives, even where these seem contrived and unnatural. In most of these cases placing the adverb after the verb seems more appropriate.
                                The second is American-style dates (eg Jan 6th for today rather than 6th Jan). I am not sure when the American style was first adopted, there or here, but I have seen Tudor era documents using British-style dates. Many Americanisms reflect older usage (eg "diaper" is an older term than "nappy" but has only been retained in America), but I don't think this to be case with date style.
                                That doesn't bother me,since it is clear which is day and which is month, but the American form when the dates are numeric does. In your example 6-1 and 1-6 are both possible dates - but will be months apart depending on which form is being used. It's an ongoing annoyance with the phone I bought when I moved here which was supposed to be UK but the date format can't be altered (neither can the time) although the instructions indicate it can.When I contacted the company to complain and find a solution I was told that regardless of it being sold in the UK for UK use the chips were all made in China to USA spec.
                                I find life confusing enough without being fed 'wrong' dates, and having mistakes/confusions on online forms.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X