English Lesson: Monty Python

Post by a***@gmail.com
I have recently uploaded the Monty Python Dead Parrot sketch, with
full transcript and vocabulary section.

Apparently you are not British. Your transcription isn't even 80% accurate.
You are missing entire sentences, frequently wrote the wrong words, and sometimes added words that are not in the audio.

a***@gmail.com

2007-02-25 19:55:25 UTC

Post by a***@gmail.com
I have recently uploaded the Monty Python Dead Parrot sketch, with
full transcript and vocabulary section.

Apparently you are not British. Your transcription isn't even 80% accurate.
You are missing entire sentences, frequently wrote the wrong words, and sometimes added words that are not in the audio.

Hi,

I will go throught the transcript to check it. I think the transcript
was from a slightly different performance of the Parrot Sketch.
However I still believe it is a great idea for listening and learning
real English.

Sorry for any inaccuracies, they will be rectified

By the way I am British, and I am an English Teacher.

Thanks for your feedback, although I reckon you could have approached
me in a friendlier manner.

Thanks

Matt

g***@mosquitoe.net

2007-02-26 00:30:56 UTC

...I reckon you could have approached me in a friendlier manner.

Probably so.

I could offer to do dental work free of charge. I'm sure you would agree that I mean well.
Lots of good intentions can't compensate for my lack of competence in dentistry.
So recognizing my limitations, I don't do dental work on anyone.

Your spelling, grammar, and punctuation skills are so poor that it is hard to think of you as someone who is actually competent to give much advice on those areas.

Why would you represent the transcript as matching the video clip without even bothering to check its accuracy?

I reckon you could have given proper credit to the author of the transcript rather than presenting it as your own work.

I appreciate that you are trying (but I think you do not know what you are doing).

a***@gmail.com

2007-02-26 13:01:29 UTC

...I reckon you could have approached me in a friendlier manner.

Probably so.
I could offer to do dental work free of charge. I'm sure you would agree that I mean well.
Lots of good intentions can't compensate for my lack of competence in dentistry.
So recognizing my limitations, I don't do dental work on anyone.
Your spelling, grammar, and punctuation skills are so poor that it is hard to think of you as someone who is actually competent to give much advice on those areas.
Why would you represent the transcript as matching the video clip without even bothering to check its accuracy?
I reckon you could have given proper credit to the author of the transcript rather than presenting it as your own work.
I appreciate that you are trying (but I think you do not know what you are doing).

Ok, well, I think your point has some validity (actually none), but
again it is full of arrogance and sarcasm.

Could you give me some examples of my poor spelling, punctuation and
grammar (from my site)? It would be most helpful dear chap.

And I think I'll pass on the dental work for now.

www.askaboutenglish.com

g***@mosquitoe.net

2007-02-27 18:04:43 UTC

If yo want to ask anything about the English language or British
culture, come to askaboutenglish.blogspot.com, its free and I will
answer you question

I could offer to do dental work free of charge. I'm sure you would agree that I mean well.
Lots of good intentions can't compensate for my lack of competence in dentistry.
So recognizing my limitations, I don't do dental work on anyone.
Your spelling, grammar, and punctuation skills are so poor that it is hard to think of you as someone who is actually competent to give much advice on those areas.

There is no need to visit your site.
You provided fine examples in this very newsgroup.

Post by g***@mosquitoe.net
Why would you represent the transcript as matching the video clip without even bothering to check its accuracy?
I reckon you could have given proper credit to the author of the transcript rather than presenting it as your own work.

And I think I'll pass on the dental work for now.

That doesn't address the question.

Post by g***@mosquitoe.net
I appreciate that you are trying (but I think you do not know what you are doing).

www.askaboutenglish.com

I consider my point proved.

For example, you claim, "The letter 'l' is quite often silent."
But in some of the examples you give, the 'l' is weakened to a 'w' (psalm --> sawm, not sam).

a***@gmail.com

2007-02-28 05:38:42 UTC

Post by g***@mosquitoe.net
For example, you claim, "The letter 'l' is quite often silent."
But in some of the examples you give, the 'l' is weakened to a 'w' (psalm --> sawm, not sam).

Ok but it is still silent, yes?

Anyway please feel free to send me the link to your website about
English, for me to lovingly pick through.

Denver

2007-02-28 05:47:33 UTC

Post by g***@mosquitoe.net
For example, you claim, "The letter 'l' is quite often silent."
But in some of the examples you give, the 'l' is weakened to a 'w' (psalm --> sawm, not sam).

Ok but it is still silent, yes?

What have we here but another example of your punctuation and spelling?

In vacuum is the second 'u' silent? Or is the first 'u' silent?

Post by a***@gmail.com
Anyway please feel free to send me the link to your website about
English, for me to lovingly pick through.

What have we here but another example of your ability to split an infinitive and inability to punctuate correctly?

g***@mosquitoe.net

2007-02-28 05:48:01 UTC

Post by g***@mosquitoe.net
For example, you claim, "The letter 'l' is quite often silent."
But in some of the examples you give, the 'l' is weakened to a 'w' (psalm --> sawm, not sam).

Ok but it is still silent, yes?

What have we here but another example of your punctuation and spelling?

In vacuum is the second 'u' silent? Or is the first 'u' silent?

Post by a***@gmail.com
Anyway please feel free to send me the link to your website about
English, for me to lovingly pick through.

What have we here but another example of your ability to split an infinitive and inability to punctuate correctly?

Einde O'Callaghan

2007-02-28 15:23:10 UTC

Post by Denver

Post by g***@mosquitoe.net
For example, you claim, "The letter 'l' is quite often silent."
But in some of the examples you give, the 'l' is weakened to a 'w'
(psalm --> sawm, not sam).

Ok but it is still silent, yes?

What have we here but another example of your punctuation and spelling?
In vacuum is the second 'u' silent? Or is the first 'u' silent?

Post by a***@gmail.com
Anyway please feel free to send me the link to your website about
English, for me to lovingly pick through.

What have we here but another example of your ability to split an
infinitive and inability to punctuate correctly?

There is nothing innately ungrammatical about split infinitives in
English. They can be found in numerous writers from the time of Chaucer
onwards. they only started to be frowned on when some bright sparks who
thought that English grammar should be like Latin grammar (a radically
different language) came up with the idea that because you couldn't
split an infinitive in latin (not surprising since latin infinitives are
always one word) this should also be the case in English.

In my opinion, complaints about split infinitives are the province of
pedants.

This comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement or otherwise of
the site mentioned by the original poster. I haven't visited the site
and so can't comment. However, the sketch is available all over the Net.
The script available, for example, at
<http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/jokes/monty-python-parrot.html> and you
can view the original ikn video form at

Since a lot of the dialogue is in non-standard English I would only
recommend it to students with a very high level of English comprehension.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

g***@mosquitoe.net

2007-03-01 05:49:43 UTC

Post by Einde O'Callaghan
There is nothing innately ungrammatical about split infinitives in
English. They can be found in numerous writers ...

I did not say that split infinitives are ungrammatical nor that they are in any writers.
I am not a dentist nor an English teacher.

Richard Polhill

2007-03-01 08:24:39 UTC

Post by Einde O'Callaghan
There is nothing innately ungrammatical about split infinitives in
English. They can be found in numerous writers from the time of Chaucer
onwards. they only started to be frowned on when some bright sparks who
thought that English grammar should be like Latin grammar (a radically
different language) came up with the idea that because you couldn't
split an infinitive in latin (not surprising since latin infinitives are
always one word) this should also be the case in English.
In my opinion, complaints about split infinitives are the province of
pedants.

Hear, hear Einde.

Illiterate pedants, perhaps?

Miss Elaine Eos

2007-03-12 06:54:34 UTC

Post by Einde O'Callaghan
In my opinion, complaints about split infinitives are the province of
pedants.

Is not pedantic equivalent to academic or learned?

Your sentence sounds a bit like "In my opinion, complaints about sloppy
English are the province of those concerned with correct English."

Well... YEAH!

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

Einde O'Callaghan

2007-03-12 06:47:02 UTC

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Einde O'Callaghan
In my opinion, complaints about split infinitives are the province of
pedants.

Is not pedantic equivalent to academic or learned?

No. According to thze Merriam Webster dictionary "pedantic" means
"narrowly, stpodgily and often ostentatiously learned" or
"unimaginative, pedestrian". As for "pedant" there is an onbsolete
meaning "a male schooteacher" but the modern meaning is "a: one who
makes a show of knowledge b: one who is unimaginative or who unduly
emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge c: a
formalist or precisionist in teaching". These pejorative meanings are
the ones I intended.

Post by Miss Elaine Eos
Your sentence sounds a bit like "In my opinion, complaints about sloppy
English are the province of those concerned with correct English."

The rule about split infinitives has nothing to do with "correct
English". They have existed in "learned, educated" usage since the 14the
century, e.g. in Wycliffe. Only in the 19th century did some pedantic
grammarians see fit to complain about it - indeed the term the term
itself is quite late - according to the OED it dates from 1897.

Even the Fowler brothers, who are often cited as THE arbiter of correct
English usage, had the following to say: "The 'split' infinitive has
taken such hold upon the consciences of journalists that, instead of
warning the novice against splitting his infinitives, we must warn him
against the curious superstition that the splitting or not splitting
makes the difference between a good and a bad writer."

So not only do I think that the "rule" against splitting infinitives is
the result of pedantic hyper-correctness, it would seem that even the
doyens of the "prescriptivists" are of a similar opinion.

There are, of course, constructions where for reasons of style it might
be best to avoid "splitting the infinitive" but there are equally cases
where artificially avoiding a "split infinitive" can change the intended
meaning of the sentence.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Richard Polhill

2007-03-12 08:29:14 UTC

Post by Einde O'Callaghan

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Einde O'Callaghan
In my opinion, complaints about split infinitives are the province of
pedants.

Is not pedantic equivalent to academic or learned?

Post by Miss Elaine Eos
Your sentence sounds a bit like "In my opinion, complaints about
sloppy English are the province of those concerned with correct English."

The rule about split infinitives has nothing to do with "correct
English". They have existed in "learned, educated" usage since the 14the
century, e.g. in Wycliffe. Only in the 19th century did some pedantic
grammarians see fit to complain about it - indeed the term the term
itself is quite late - according to the OED it dates from 1897.
Even the Fowler brothers, who are often cited as THE arbiter of correct
English usage, had the following to say: "The 'split' infinitive has
taken such hold upon the consciences of journalists that, instead of
warning the novice against splitting his infinitives, we must warn him
against the curious superstition that the splitting or not splitting
makes the difference between a good and a bad writer."
So not only do I think that the "rule" against splitting infinitives is
the result of pedantic hyper-correctness, it would seem that even the
doyens of the "prescriptivists" are of a similar opinion.
There are, of course, constructions where for reasons of style it might
be best to avoid "splitting the infinitive" but there are equally cases
where artificially avoiding a "split infinitive" can change the intended
meaning of the sentence.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde the truth speaketh.

Richard Polhill

2007-03-01 08:33:00 UTC

Post by Denver
What have we here but another example of your punctuation and spelling?
In vacuum is the second 'u' silent? Or is the first 'u' silent?

Neither. The first is long, the second short, as in "vac-you-um".

Admittedly, many accents will elide the second "u" resulting in "vac-youm".

Richard Polhill

2007-03-01 08:21:33 UTC

Post by g***@mosquitoe.net
For example, you claim, "The letter 'l' is quite often silent."
But in some of the examples you give, the 'l' is weakened to a 'w'
(psalm --> sawm, not sam).

What rubbish; it is purely a matter of accent. In British English, the "l" in
"psalm" is completely silent, serving only to lengthen the preceding "a",
sounding like "aa" in "aardvark", much as the "r" does in the same word when
spoken by Brits.

I know Americans, probably due to Noah Webster's ideas on how language should
be taught, tend to pronounce "r"s fully, it is by no means universal.

Neither rule can be stated as definite.

g***@mosquitoe.net

2007-03-01 08:42:50 UTC

Post by g***@mosquitoe.net
For example, you claim, "The letter 'l' is quite often silent."
But in some of the examples you give, the 'l' is weakened to a 'w'
(psalm --> sawm, not sam).

I know Americans ... tend to pronounce "r"s fully, it is by no means
universal.

Some people fully pronounce the 'l' in 'calm' and 'psalm', some pronounce it like 'w'.
Is that your point?

Richard Polhill

2007-03-01 10:48:07 UTC

Post by g***@mosquitoe.net
For example, you claim, "The letter 'l' is quite often silent."
But in some of the examples you give, the 'l' is weakened to a 'w'
(psalm --> sawm, not sam).

I know Americans ... tend to pronounce "r"s fully, it is by no means
universal.

Some people fully pronounce the 'l' in 'calm' and 'psalm', some pronounce it like 'w'.
Is that your point?

No it is not. I said:-

In British English, the "l" in "psalm" is completely silent, serving only
to lengthen the preceding "a", sounding like "aa" in "aardvark", much as
the "r" does in the same word when spoken by Brits."

Meaning, that the "l" in "calm" and "psalm", and the "r" in "aardvark" are
silent modifiers to the preceding vowel in typical British English
pronunciation, so what the OP said is true for his given locality.

I know Americans, probably due to Noah Webster's ideas on how language
should be taught, tend to pronounce "r"s fully, it is by no means
universal.

I suspect that somewhere in the world you'll find people speaking English with
an accent that does pronounce the "l" in "calm" and "psalm", but that is not
what I was trying to say. I was attempting to allay any following argument
that the "r" in "aardvark" is fully pronounced.

My point was that anything you want to define about pronunciation is true but
only for a given value of "true". ;-)

In fact anything you want to say about how words are pronounced is only valid
for a given subset of the speakers of the language.

Philip Baker

2007-03-02 01:25:40 UTC

Post by Richard Polhill

Post by g***@mosquitoe.net
For example, you claim, "The letter 'l' is quite often silent."
But in some of the examples you give, the 'l' is weakened to a 'w'
(psalm --> sawm, not sam).

I know Americans ... tend to pronounce "r"s fully, it is by no means
universal.

Some people fully pronounce the 'l' in 'calm' and 'psalm', some pronounce it like 'w'.
Is that your point?

No it is not. I said:-

In British English, the "l" in "psalm" is completely silent, serving only
to lengthen the preceding "a", sounding like "aa" in "aardvark", much as
the "r" does in the same word when spoken by Brits."

I know Americans, probably due to Noah Webster's ideas on how language
should be taught, tend to pronounce "r"s fully, it is by no means
universal.

I suspect that somewhere in the world you'll find people speaking English with
an accent that does pronounce the "l" in "calm" and "psalm", but that is not
what I was trying to say. I was attempting to allay any following argument
that the "r" in "aardvark" is fully pronounced.
My point was that anything you want to define about pronunciation is true but
only for a given value of "true". ;-)
In fact anything you want to say about how words are pronounced is only valid
for a given subset of the speakers of the language.

In my vaguely RP accent 'calm', 'balm', 'psalm', rhyme with 'arm' and
'farm'. There is a feature of Estuary English where 'l' after a vowel is
indeed weakened to a 'w' like sound, a feature that has been around for
a long time - before the use of the term 'Estuary English'. But that's
another issue.

--
Philip Baker
PJB Software
Thalasson Web Resources

Chris Croughton

2007-03-07 18:12:22 UTC

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:25:40 +0000, Philip Baker

Post by Philip Baker

Post by Richard Polhill

Post by g***@mosquitoe.net
For example, you claim, "The letter 'l' is quite often silent."
But in some of the examples you give, the 'l' is weakened to a 'w'
(psalm --> sawm, not sam).

I know Americans ... tend to pronounce "r"s fully, it is by no means
universal.

Some people fully pronounce the 'l' in 'calm' and 'psalm', some pronounce it like 'w'.
Is that your point?

No it is not. I said:-

In British English, the "l" in "psalm" is completely silent, serving only
to lengthen the preceding "a", sounding like "aa" in "aardvark", much as
the "r" does in the same word when spoken by Brits."

I know Americans, probably due to Noah Webster's ideas on how language
should be taught, tend to pronounce "r"s fully, it is by no means
universal.

I suspect that somewhere in the world you'll find people speaking English with
an accent that does pronounce the "l" in "calm" and "psalm", but that is not
what I was trying to say. I was attempting to allay any following argument
that the "r" in "aardvark" is fully pronounced.
My point was that anything you want to define about pronunciation is true but
only for a given value of "true". ;-)
In fact anything you want to say about how words are pronounced is only valid
for a given subset of the speakers of the language.

In my vaguely RP accent 'calm', 'balm', 'psalm', rhyme with 'arm' and
'farm'.

In any of those do you pronounce the 'r', or is it pronounced as 'cahm'
and 'sahm'? The latter is how I pronounce them (with my own "vaguely
RP" accent -- thanks for the term).

Note that the 'p' in 'psalm' is silent, as it is in 'milk'.

Post by Philip Baker
There is a feature of Estuary English where 'l' after a vowel is
indeed weakened to a 'w' like sound, a feature that has been around for
a long time - before the use of the term 'Estuary English'. But that's
another issue.

I haven't heard that (or perhaps my ear can't distinguish it), but a
certain speech defect common in people from the south-east of England
replaces 'r' with 'w', as exemplified by Jonathan Woss (sorry, Ross).

The common perception that Chinese and Japanese people reverse 'r' and
'l' is incorrect, they actually use a sound between the two for both of
them so that if one is expecting an 'r' then it is perceived as being
"more like an 'l'" and vice versa. The same is true of a lot of
European 'v' and 'w' confusion, the actual sound used for both is
somewhere between the two.

Chris C

Richard Polhill

2007-03-08 07:54:35 UTC