Something doesn't add up

"Dirk Thierbach" <dthierbach RemoveThis @usenet.arcornews.de> skrev i meddelandet
news:20080530104711.1B97.1.NOFFLE@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...

[snip]

> Ah, you meant "short as a hobbit"; and not "'short' and 'stoor' have
> a obvious connection". Thanks, I misunderstood that. (BTW, Tolkien says in
> the /Guide to Names/: "This is early English /stor, stoor/ 'large,
> strong',
> now obsolete.", so I was confused).

Indeed, "stor" (proniounced "stoor") is still a living word in Scandinavian
languages. It means "big".

Öjevind
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

Matthew T Curtis wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 12:19:53 -0500, Larry Swain <giles RemoveThis @poetic.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Matthew T Curtis wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:32:09 GMT, Sean_Q_ <nospam RemoveThis @no.sapm> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>According to a documentary on Tolkien, he wanted an "English" national
>>>>legend. Apparently the Arthurian legends wouldn't do because they were
>>>>a "French import".
>>>>
>>>>And yet Arthur himself was supposed to be a "Briton" -- in his case
>>>>a Romanized Celt in the latter part of the 5th century.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes. The Arthur stories were in origin Celtic legends from the
>>>post-Roman period, about a warlord who fought the Saxons, originally
>>>transmitted orally, and collected by Geoffrey of Monmouth in _The
>>>History of the Kings of Britain_.
>>
>>Well, so he claims. As far as I recall, we have no Breton sources, and
>>the Welsh sources only mention 1 battle, the Annals of Wales, the other
>>tales don't mention this (though do correct me if I'm wrong) until
>>Nennius, and as you probably know Nennius is fraught with difficulty.
>
>
> Well, with the oral tradition, who can tell?

Oral tradition should never be used as a catch all for anything. You
either have evidence to sustain your point, or you don't. Who knows?
There may have been oral tradition with detailed plans of space ships in
the fifth century BCE, but because it was oral it got lost.

>
>>The story was then used by the
>>
>>>minstrels of France and Italy as the basis of the 'Matter of Britain'
>>>- one of the three great story-cycles from which their popular stories
>>>in the vernacular languages - 'romances' - were drawn. The others were
>>>the 'Matter of France' - Charlemagne and his paladins - and the
>>>'Matter of Rome' - the ancient Greek and Roman myths.
>>>
>>>The minstrels included in the Matter of Britainfantastic
>>>embellishments not in the original,
>>
>>HMMM, probably not....magic rings, magic places, astoninshingly
>>beautiful women, grotesque monsters and servants are all par for the
>>course in Celtic literature of the time, and are all elements of course
>>in the Arthurian romances.
>
>
> Agreed. But not in the historical root stories, and, as I recall,
> sparingly in Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Except that the historiographers are not the sources for the minstrel
tales, so saying that the minstrels "added" elements to the stories is
false....tis the other way round, the historiographers subtracted
fantastic material from the songs of the minstrels.
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

On Jun 1, 1:05 am, Derek Broughton <n....RemoveThis@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Morgoth's Curse wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 May 2008 12:50:59 -0300, Derek Broughton
> > <n....RemoveThis@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> >>Ack!  In English, you can't get any two people to agree on pronunciation
> >>(and given what people think of the German accent I acquired from an
> >>Afrikaans teacher, I'm not sure German is any more uniform), but I would
> >>pronounce the English word "Stoor" more like "Stür".
>
> > I disagree!  ^_^
>
> > It should be pronounced "st -oar."
>
> Thank you.  I was beginning to think nobody would disagree, which would have
> shattered my argument...
> --
> derek

Well, I always thought that it was pronounced 'stoor', but then i
don't speak with a Canadian accent ;o)
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

JimboCat wrote:

> On May 30, 4:41 pm, Derek Broughton <n... DeleteThis @pointerstop.ca> wrote:

>> > I'll also note /The Silver Chalice/ by, uh, it's on the tip of my
>> > tongue (and somewhere on my bookshelf)
>>
>> Thomas Costain
>>
>> > but it's out of print and even
>> > abebooks can't find it, but it is notable mostly in that it tries to
>
> No, no! I got the color all wrong, as it turns out, which is why I
> couldn't find it (all I found was the Costain, which is NOT it at
> all). The book I was thinking of is /The Crimson Chalice/ by Victor
> Canning. Not a great novel, but notable as an attempt at a
> historically plausible Arthur...

Ah! The library's catalog info for /The Silver Chalice/ didn't mention King
Arthur, but since the Grail figures into many Arthurian stories it didn't
seem so far-fetched. Now I'll have to check out the other one...
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

JimboCat wrote:

> No, no! I got the color all wrong, as it turns out, which is why I
> couldn't find it (all I found was the Costain, which is NOT it at
> all). The book I was thinking of is /The Crimson Chalice/ by Victor
> Canning. Not a great novel, but notable as an attempt at a
> historically plausible Arthur...

Well, then it's still available used from several sellers:

http://isbndb.com/d/book/the_crimson_chalice_a01.html

There's also a /Crimson Chalice trilogy/:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140052534/ejelta5-20
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

In message <news:i78344tj76tfmhq9p8m3pjpjet91a3v6vm@4ax.com>
Morgoth's Curse <morgothscurse2002 RemoveThis @nospam.yahoo.com> spoke these
staves:
>
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 12:50:59 -0300, Derek Broughton
> <news RemoveThis @pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>>

[On 'Stoor']

>> I would pronounce the English word "Stoor" more like "Stür".
>
> I disagree! ^_^
>
> It should be pronounced "st -oar."
>
> At least that is how I always pronounced it and since my way is
> the most sensible way, that is how it should be pronounced.

That's interesting.

Given that it's an old word, I don't suppose that modern
pronunciation rules can be relied on, but I've always pronouned the
English word with the 'oo' of 'moor' (which I guess would, in German,
be something like 'stuhr'), but you seem to suggest something more
akin to the 'oo' of 'floor' (though not exactly like 'store')? That
would actually be even closer to the Danish word 'stor' (I don't know
any English word that would capture the Danish 'o' -- French 'eau'
comes pretty close, though, as does the German 'o' in general).

Does anyone know how the word was pronounced when in daily use in
English?

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

If no thought
your mind does visit,
make your speech
not too explicit.
- Piet Hein, /The Case for Obscurity/
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

Troels Forchhammer wrote:

> In message <news:i78344tj76tfmhq9p8m3pjpjet91a3v6vm@4ax.com>
> Morgoth's Curse <morgothscurse2002.TakeThisOut@nospam.yahoo.com> spoke these
> staves:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 12:50:59 -0300, Derek Broughton
>> <news.TakeThisOut@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>>>
>
> [On 'Stoor']
>
>>> I would pronounce the English word "Stoor" more like "Stür".
>>
>> I disagree! ^_^
>>
>> It should be pronounced "st -oar."
>>
>> At least that is how I always pronounced it and since my way is
>> the most sensible way, that is how it should be pronounced.
>
> That's interesting.
>
> Given that it's an old word, I don't suppose that modern
> pronunciation rules can be relied on, but I've always pronouned the
> English word with the 'oo' of 'moor' (which I guess would, in German,
> be something like 'stuhr'), but you seem to suggest something more
> akin to the 'oo' of 'floor' (though not exactly like 'store')?

Yes, exactly like floor, door and store (sorry, I don't hear a difference).

> Does anyone know how the word was pronounced when in daily use in
> English?

That was the point I was trying to make - there really is little likelihood
that it ever had a single pronunciation. Its use died before the BBC and
any concept of a standard English.
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

"JimboCat" <103134.3516.DeleteThis@compuserve.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:d4d1929f-bb1c-432c-b995-a05ff7b5c34c@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

> No, no! I got the color all wrong, as it turns out, which is why I
> couldn't find it (all I found was the Costain, which is NOT it at
> all). The book I was thinking of is /The Crimson Chalice/ by Victor
> Canning. Not a great novel, but notable as an attempt at a
> historically plausible Arthur...

Another somewhat different book is Rosemary Sutcliff's "The Lantern
Bearers", which received the Carnegie Medal in 1959. I think one can find
reprints on Amazon. It's about a young Roman officer who deserts from the
legions when Britain is abandoned by Rome because Britain in his home, and
his tribulations following that. Finally, he takes service with Aurelius
Ambrosius, who in Sutcliff's version is the uncle of young Artos (Arthur).
It is primarily an attempt to depict Roman Britain after it was left on its
own and doesn't feature any Arthurian material apart from young Artos, who
in the book has just started out.
There is a much inferior (and much later) sequel where Artos is at the
centre, and where one also encounters Guinevere, but I did not care much for
that one.

Öjevind
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

Troels Forchhammer <Troels.TakeThisOut@ThisIsFake.invalid> writes:

> Morgoth's Curse <morgothscurse2002.TakeThisOut@nospam.yahoo.com> spoke these
> staves:
....
>> It should be pronounced "st -oar."
....
> Given that it's an old word, I don't suppose that modern
> pronunciation rules can be relied on, but I've always pronouned the
> English word with the 'oo' of 'moor' (which I guess would, in German,
> be something like 'stuhr'), but you seem to suggest something more
> akin to the 'oo' of 'floor' (though not exactly like 'store')? That

Firstly, there's no difference (in RP either today or a hundred years
ago) between the vowels of 'floor' and 'store'. Today, they're also
the same as the vowel of 'flaw'. You'll still find dictionaries
claiming that 'store' and 'floor' are pronounced with /O@/, with a
schwa acting as a remnant of the /r/ we don't pronounce, but I'd be
surprised if you could find a standard English speaker who still does that.

The /U@/ pronunciation of 'moor' etc. is also on the way out. It's
almost dead in 'poor' (though I still use it); 'moor' is too rare to
have any impression of, but I'd expect to hear /mO:/ from most people.
(Consequently, 'poor', 'pore' and 'paw' are homophones for most modern
RP speakers, though they would have been distinct a century ago.)

However, for those of who still have /U@/, that seems to me the
natural way to pronounce 'stoor', and it's what I do.

> Does anyone know how the word was pronounced when in daily use in
> English?

The OED doesn't give phonetic pronunciations of obsolete words. It
lists the pronunciation as "stur", but that is probably taking the
Scottishness of its current (as at 1890) usage into account. A word
that is /ur/ in Scottish is probably /U@/ in standard Englishes that
have the sound.
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:27:51 +0100, Julian Bradfield
<jcb.TakeThisOut@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>Troels Forchhammer <Troels.TakeThisOut@ThisIsFake.invalid> writes:

<snippo>

>> Given that it's an old word, I don't suppose that modern
>> pronunciation rules can be relied on, but I've always pronouned the
>> English word with the 'oo' of 'moor' (which I guess would, in German,
>> be something like 'stuhr'), but you seem to suggest something more
>> akin to the 'oo' of 'floor' (though not exactly like 'store')? That
>
>Firstly, there's no difference (in RP either today or a hundred years
>ago) between the vowels of 'floor' and 'store'. Today, they're also
>the same as the vowel of 'flaw'. You'll still find dictionaries
>claiming that 'store' and 'floor' are pronounced with /O@/, with a
>schwa acting as a remnant of the /r/ we don't pronounce, but I'd be
>surprised if you could find a standard English speaker who still does that.
>
>The /U@/ pronunciation of 'moor' etc. is also on the way out. It's
>almost dead in 'poor' (though I still use it); 'moor' is too rare to
>have any impression of, but I'd expect to hear /mO:/ from most people.
>(Consequently, 'poor', 'pore' and 'paw' are homophones for most modern
>RP speakers, though they would have been distinct a century ago.)

In my area, while "floor" and "store" use the same vowel, "flaw"
certainly does not. Similarly, "poor" and "pore" (generally the same,
although I do recall a distinction in the days of my youth, in which
"poor" sounded more like "pure" without the y-glide in front of the
"u" and the "p" was more subdued than in "pure") are quite distinct
from "paw". Of course, we speak English here, not "RP", whatever
/that/ is.

That is not to say that dialects of English in which "floor" and
"flaw" sound alike do not exist. The dialect lampooned in /Jaws/ would
be a good candidate, ("he's in the caw in the yawd) if it actually
exists.

My belief is that I would pronounce "stoor" as I remember "poor" to
have been pronounced (subdued "p", y-glideless "u"); but "stoar" like
"floor" (or rather like "boar"). Of course, since I never actually say
the word, this is entirely theoretical.
--
"A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature,
but contrary to what we know as nature."
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

Paul S. Person wrote:

(snip)

> In my area, while "floor" and "store" use the same vowel, "flaw"
> certainly does not. Similarly, "poor" and "pore" (generally the same,
> although I do recall a distinction in the days of my youth, in which
> "poor" sounded more like "pure" without the y-glide in front of the
> "u" and the "p" was more subdued than in "pure") are quite distinct
> from "paw". Of course, we speak English here, not "RP", whatever
> /that/ is.

RP="Received Pronunciation"; in other words, the Queen's English.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation

> That is not to say that dialects of English in which "floor" and
> "flaw" sound alike do not exist. The dialect lampooned in /Jaws/ would
> be a good candidate, ("he's in the caw in the yawd) if it actually
> exists.

Those are known as non-rhotic accents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotic_and_non-rhotic_accents

> My belief is that I would pronounce "stoor" as I remember "poor" to
> have been pronounced (subdued "p", y-glideless "u"); but "stoar" like
> "floor" (or rather like "boar"). Of course, since I never actually say
> the word, this is entirely theoretical.

That's how I've always imagined the pronunciation. As for my own
accent, I'm a Cincinnati native and speak something quite close to
General American.

But now that I come to think of it, Tolkien would have spoken with
a non-rhotic accent -- as noted in another Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellar_door
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

"Paul S. Person" <psperson RemoveThis @ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote in message

> That is not to say that dialects of English in which "floor" and
> "flaw" sound alike do not exist. The dialect lampooned in /Jaws/ would
> be a good candidate, ("he's in the caw in the yawd) if it actually
> exists.

Yes it exists. It's the "Boston Brahmin (sp)" dialect. Once need only listen
to an oratory by US Senator Edward Kennedy (from Boston) to hear a worst
case of it. Or for that matter his late brother John F was even "worse".
Both were educated at Haw-Vawd Law

That "dialect" is strongest from Boston to Cape Cod and tapers off the
further you get from that epicenter. I lived in NH about an hour out of
Boston and have about a 50% case of it - but here in SC I now sound (to
them) like a Bostonian - so it's all relative.

That said, I always felt a true "dialect" needed many of it's own words and
idioms to separate it from others. But I could be mistaken.

-W
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

Julian Bradfield wrote:
>
> Firstly, there's no difference (in RP either today or a hundred years
> ago) between the vowels of 'floor' and 'store'. Today, they're also
> the same as the vowel of 'flaw'.

:O

I quite assure you, that while I saw "floor" and "store" the same way, I
do not saw "flaw" using the same vowel at all.

Michelle
Flutist
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up