Some style guides recommend the diaeresis over doubled vowels when they are pronounced separately. The idea is I believe from French: maïs, Noël, etc.
I was taught to do it that way in public school here in Canada in the 90s; it is the textbook proper way to spell words like coördination. I was also taught that no one actually spells it that way and that co-ordination and coordination are both fine and far more common.
> The idea is I believe from French: maïs, Noël, etc.
Apropos of nothing, except that it will allow me to vent a bit, it also changes the rule for the pronunciation of the last consonant of French words.
Normally the lack of a trailing "e" would mean the last consonant is not-sounded but the diaeresis changes it: maïs/"my-isz", Noël/"noh-ell", etc.
And yes Moët (the champagne) is pronounced "moh-ett" in France and by French speakers.
It's incredibly annoying having someone subtly but in a slightly superior manner "correct" your pronunciation by repeating the mispronunciation right after you've pronounced it correctly - "sure, I'll order some some MOHAY". Outside I'm smiling and nodding pretending not to notice, inside I'm screaming "IT'S MOH-fcking-ETT MTHERF*KER - MOH-ETT."
> it also changes the rule for the pronunciation of the last consonant of French words.
This was a very well explained distinction, with the exception of you using "Noël" as one of the examples, since "Noel" would still have a sounded "L". It would be weird to a French speaker but would most likely end up being pronounced somewhat like the English "null".
> And yes Moët (the champagne) is pronounced "moh-ett" in France and by French speakers.
My favorite Moët mispronunciation is one that it took me several months to understand: Russians pronounce it as if it was spelled in Cyrillic, so they say "mah- yacht".
There is a famous MORGENSHTERN song which I only understood was about champagne when I saw the music video for the first time.
> This was a very well explained distinction, with the exception of you using "Noël" as one of the examples
Do you have reason to believe it's true, or are you commenting to say that it would have been a well-explained distinction if it were true?
I tried to verify it, and found nothing but evidence that implicitly or explicitly contradicted it.
(The best I could find in favor were the English wikipedia page on the house of Perrier-Jouët, which lists a pronunciation with /t/ -- the French page lists no pronunciation at all -- and the 19th-century book Comment on prononce le français, which confirms that maïs is pronounced with a final /s/, but lists it without comment alongside several other words that feature the same irregular pronunciation of "-s", none of which include a diaeresis. I'm compelled to infer that the realization of /s/ in maïs has nothing to do with the diaeresis.
The way I was taught this in French school is that the diaeresis causes the letter to be pronounced separately, so in maïs the "¨" forces you to say "a" and "i" separately (ah- ee) instead of together ("eh" as in "mais" which is an existing French word).
It only affects the diphthong AFAIK, so I agree with you that it's not the reason for why the "s" is pronounced out loud.
The final "s" is usually silent in French and I'm not aware of any rule for what defines the exceptions.
The outcome for the final "-s" is somewhat influenced by the origin of the word, as you would pronounce "bis" differently depending on whether you mean "beige" or half-whole-wheat bread, vs. if you mean "repeated" (from latin).
There are a bunch of such weird exceptions, like "vis" (screw, or past tense of "to see") or "bus" (bus, or drank) which both can be pronounced either depending on their meaning, or "os" which is different depending on plural vs. singular.
For the ending "-s" there is also some regional variation. Where I was born, you would normally pronounce the final "s" in words like "plus" or "moins", and I was very surprised as a teenager to meet people from other French regions who made fun of it.
> The final "s" is usually silent in French and I'm not aware of any rule for what defines the exceptions.
I don't think there is a rule. The 19th-century book said this:
>> L's s'est maintenu ou définitivement rétabli depuis plus ou moins longtemps dans maïs, jadis, fi(l)s et lis (y compris fleur de lis le plus souvent, malgré l'Académie); dans metis, cassis, vis (substantif) et tournevis. La prononciation de ces mots sans s est tout à fait surannée; on ne peut plus la conserver que pour les nécessités de la rime, et encore!
The reference to /s/ being maintained or reestablished, and the pronunciation without /s/ being out of date, suggests to me that the rule was that final /s/ was lost (in Parisian French, I guess...), and that there was a specific effort to put it back into some words. But that's speculation on my part.
It seems clear that bus "bus" and maïs "maize" have a final /s/ because they are foreign words. It's less clear to me why they're given those spellings as opposed to something more like busse.
For the champagne, we see this heading the French wikipedia page:
> Moët & Chandon (prononciation /moɛt‿e ʃɑ̃ˈdɔ̃/) est une maison de Champagne fondée en 1743
But that doesn't imply that there is a /t/ pronounced in "Moët" when not followed by a vowel; that's just normal French liaison. The explicit liaison marker in the phonetic spelling strongly implies that there isn't a /t/ in citation pronunciation.
This is all wiki information though - do you have a better source?
> An increasingly popular modulation scheme is Binary Pseudo Random Phase Coding (BPRPC), whereby the phase of the transmitted signal is switched between 0 and 180 under the control of a binary pseudo random sequence
I know this sounds insane but I've been dwelling on it. Language models are digital Ouija boards. I like the metaphor because it offers multiple conflicting interpretations. How does a Ouija board work? The words appear. Where do they come from? It can be explained in physical terms. Or in metaphysical terms. Collective summing of psychomotor activity. Conduits to a non-corporeal facet of existence. Many caution against the Ouija board as a path to self-inflicted madness, others caution against the Ouija board as a vehicle to bring poorly understood inhuman forces into the world.
There's 2 completely different ways to understand how a Ouija board works. Occult, and Scientific.
Scientific: It's a combined response from everyone's collective unconscious blend of everyone participating. In other words, its a probabilistic result of an "answer" to the question everyone hears.
Occult: If an entity is present, it's basically the unshielded response of that entity by collectively moving everyone's body the same way, as a form of a mild channel. Since Ouija doesn't specific to make a circle and request presence of a specific entity, there's a good chance of some being hostile. Or, you all get nothing at all, and basically garbage as part of the divination/communication.
But comparing Ouija to LLMs? The LLM, with the same weights, with the same hyperparameters, and same questions will give the same answers. That is deterministic, at least in that narrow sense. An Ouija board is not deterministic, and cannot be tested in any meaningful scientific sense.
Everything dies in winter. And then is reborn. Everyone who lives in a cold climate knows deep in their bones that cold and winter are death.
Though if we're going to get stereotypical about national characteristics (a dangerous game) then what might be more specifically Japanese is the particularly heightened understanding of this cycle. Or at least, its expression in art, when in the west we might flinch away.
I'm currently reading Spring Snow, so probably some of Yukio Mishima is drifting into my thoughts here. (Explaining puns ruins them but there it is again: Yuki o. Snow.)
Just a month ago the American ambassador to Iceland recently made a joke that demanded formal explanation from the Icelandic state; the ambassador apologized for the "joke" and misunderstanding immediately.
Anyone taking bets who will be made persona non grata first?
I recently skimmed a grammar of Faroese [0]. Not much has been written about the language in English; only a few books, and an English-Faroese dictionary was only first published in the 1980s.
It's spoken by about 50,000 people in the Faroe Islands, which are between Iceland and Scotland. The isles were settled by Viking-era Norse about a thousand years ago and then largely forgotten by the rest of the world. But they kept speaking their version of Old Norse and it became its own language. There are many dialects and the writing system was designed to cover all of them, so it is is etymologically informed by Old Norse and it is very conservative. It's not at all indicative of how it's really pronounced. The written form is somewhat even mutually intelligible with Icelandic / Old Norse, but the spoken language is not.
Underneath those æ and ð is a language that is oddly similar to English, like parallel convergent evolution. It's a North Germanic language not a West Germanic language so the historical diversion point is about 1500 years ago.
But it has undergone an extensive vowel shift (but in a different pattern). And also like English, it has also undergone extensive affrication (turned into ch/j) of the stop consonants and reduction of final stops and intervocalic stops. It has the same kind of stress - vowel reduction interaction that English has. That further heightens the uncanny effect.
I came away with the impression that it is English's closest sibling language, aside from Dutch. Some vocabulary:
broðir "broh-wer" (brother), heyggjur "hoy-cher" (hill/height), brúgv "brukf" (bridge), sjógvar/sjós "shekvar/shos" (sea), skyggj "skooch" (sky/cloud), djópur "cho-pur" (deep), veðirinn "ve-vir-uhn" (weather). Rough pronunciations given between quotes; all examples are cognate with English!
There's an extended story reading by a native speaker here [1] if you want an example of what it sounds like. No idea what they're saying. The intonation reminds me a bit of the northern British isles which also had a Norse influence.
As a native speaker of Swedish and Norwegian, I can mostly understand spoken Faroese (if they speak slowly). In spoken Icelandic, I understand some words, but rarely a complete sentence.
I was taught to do it that way in public school here in Canada in the 90s; it is the textbook proper way to spell words like coördination. I was also taught that no one actually spells it that way and that co-ordination and coordination are both fine and far more common.
reply