pronunciation on malloc thing

[James Kanze]

I don't understand what that means.

[/QUOTE]

It means the pronunciation is [tSa:] and
not [ka:] . For the meaning of symbols
within square brackets, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-SAMPA

I don't think that this is the usual convention, although many
of the sounds (including the ones here) do correspond. See
http://alt-usage-english.org/ipa/ascii_ipa_combined.shtml, for
example, or (more complete and more complex)
www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/ascii-ipa.pdf. (The latter is, I think,
the most widespread convention, and I believe that the
alt-usage-english conventions are based on it.)

The "t" in "tch" surprises some people who've
never thought about the sound. However if you
do think about it, you will realise that it is
the same as "sh" but with a [t] first.

In some languages that sound is in fact written
"tch", e.g. German, in which plain "ch" means [X]

In German, the sound would be written tsch (where sch means
). And the German plain ch can be either [X] or [C],
according to context.

 

[Default User]

It means the pronunciation is [tSa:] and
not [ka:] . For the meaning of symbols
within square brackets, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-SAMPA

I don't think that this is the usual convention, although many
of the sounds (including the ones here) do correspond.

I found that more confusing than helpful. Probably just me.

See
http://alt-usage-english.org/ipa/ascii_ipa_combined.shtml, for
example, or (more complete and more complex)
www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/ascii-ipa.pdf. (The latter is, I think,
the most widespread convention, and I believe that the
alt-usage-english conventions are based on it.)

I generally don't care for the way they do it on aue either. I prefer
to give rhymes when relatively unambiguous, or spell out the syllables.
That doubtlessly lacks precision, but I find it more accessible.

The "t" in "tch" surprises some people who've
never thought about the sound. However if you
do think about it, you will realise that it is
the same as "sh" but with a [t] first.

In some languages that sound is in fact written
"tch", e.g. German, in which plain "ch" means [X]

In German, the sound would be written tsch (where sch means
). And the German plain ch can be either [X] or [C],
according to context.

I gather the upshot was that "char" should be pronounced as in
"charcoal". I'll have to say that in my experience among the software
people here that's probably the least common. I find "car" or "care" to
be much more popular. And of course, "car" is the "right" way, because
that's how I do it.




Brian

 

[James Kanze]

James Kanze wrote:

[...]

I generally don't care for the way they do it on aue either. I
prefer to give rhymes when relatively unambiguous, or spell
out the syllables. That doubtlessly lacks precision, but I
find it more accessible.

Question of intended audience, probably. IPA is the
"scientific" way (and an international standard). It's also
widely used in dictionaries, and when teaching a foreign
language (where rhymes are hopeless if the sound doesn't exist
in your own language).

[...]

I gather the upshot was that "char" should be pronounced as in
"charcoal". I'll have to say that in my experience among the software
people here that's probably the least common. I find "car" or "care" to
be much more popular. And of course, "car" is the "right" way, because
that's how I do it.

I've never heard "care". Or "char", for that matter. But I'm
not sure my experience could be considered a reference; I've
never worked in a place where English was the native language.

My gut feeling is that "char" is a contraction of "character",
so it's pronunciation should also be a contraction.
(Etymologically, the ch in "char" can ultimately be traced back
to a Greek chi, which means that it would normally be pronunced
[k]. But of course, language doesn't always to the "normal"
thing.)

 

[joe]

I think the problem is that 'char' is a word (meaning to scortch or
partially burn) and some recognize it as that and use that
pronunciation whereas others use the "It's the first four letters of
character" rationale. I can't for the life of me figure out how 'car'
gets into the mix as a pronunciation as that isn't related to
anything. Personally, I have used both 'char' and 'care', but
probably 'char' more often (because it is a word and they wouldn't
have spelled it like that if they didn't want that connection,
right? ).

joe

 

[Victor Bazarov]

I think the problem is that 'char' is a word (meaning to scortch or
partially burn) and some recognize it as that and use that
pronunciation whereas others use the "It's the first four letters of
character" rationale. I can't for the life of me figure out how 'car'
gets into the mix as a pronunciation as that isn't related to
anything.

Depends on how you pronounce 'car'

[..]

V

 

[Default User]

I think the problem is that 'char' is a word (meaning to scortch or
partially burn) and some recognize it as that and use that
pronunciation whereas others use the "It's the first four letters of
character" rationale. I can't for the life of me figure out how 'car'
gets into the mix as a pronunciation as that isn't related to
anything.

I have no idea, but I do it and many others do as well.

I'll point out that "char" in C-derived languages is NOT the word
"char", and is completely unrelated to it. There's no particular reason
it should be pronounced that way. I think there's a better argument for
"care", but I don't like it.

So I'll probably say "car" as long as it's an issue for me.




Brian

 

[Default User]

Depends on how you pronounce 'car'

Rhymes with "bar". Let's go.




Brian

 

[BobR]

Rhymes with "bar". Let's go.

You buying?

 

[Jim Langston]

Recently, I have to communicate C++ technical problems in English, I found
that `malloc', `strcpy', `operator()' and something like that hard to
express,

malloc => [malok] or `memory allocate'
strcpy => `S T R C P Y' or `string copy'

Is there any recommendation on the pronunciation for them?

I've always used and heard "mal-uk". I use "string copy" for strcpy,
"string en copy" for strncpy.
char -> char-acter "care"
std -> "standard"
int -> int-iger "int"
bool -> bool-ean "bool"
alloc -> "al-uk"
cout -> "see-out"
cin -> "see-in"
cerr -> "see-err"
iostream -> "eye-oh-stream"
fopen -> "ef-open"
etc..

 

[James Kanze]

I think the problem is that 'char' is a word (meaning to scortch or
partially burn) and some recognize it as that and use that
pronunciation whereas others use the "It's the first four letters of
character" rationale. I can't for the life of me figure out how 'car'
gets into the mix as a pronunciation as that isn't related to
anything.

It's how the first four letters in character are pronunced.
Very roughly, of course. (I'd say that the a in character was
somewhat more anterior than that in char. But it's certainly
not the [E:j] of care.)

Personally, I have used both 'char' and 'care', but probably
'char' more often (because it is a word and they wouldn't have
spelled it like that if they didn't want that connection,
right? ).

They spelled it like that for the same reason they spelled
integer int. If you've ever heard the sound of a listing being
output to a teletype, you'll understand why they want as few
characters as possible. Knowing that it's a contraction for
character, I pronunce it as I do the first sylable of
character. Which is closer to car than to the word char or
care.

 

[Victor Bazarov]

I think the problem is that 'char' is a word (meaning to scortch or
partially burn) and some recognize it as that and use that
pronunciation whereas others use the "It's the first four letters of
character" rationale. I can't for the life of me figure out how
'car' gets into the mix as a pronunciation as that isn't related to
anything.

It's how the first four letters in character are pronunced.
Very roughly, of course. (I'd say that the a in character was
somewhat more anterior than that in char. But it's certainly
not the [E:j] of care.)

It's not [E:j], it's "er" in the US.

And, however strange it might sound, the word "character" has two
pronunciations and the pronunciation of 'care' is the beginning of
one of them. It can be specific to American English, though.

[..]

V

 

[Default User]

They spelled it like that for the same reason they spelled
integer int. If you've ever heard the sound of a listing being
output to a teletype, you'll understand why they want as few
characters as possible. Knowing that it's a contraction for
character, I pronunce it as I do the first sylable of
character. Which is closer to car than to the word char or
care.

That may be true in your area, but here the first syllable of
"character" is the same as "care". Are you in an area where
Mary/merry/marry are not the same, perhaps?



Brian

 

[James Kanze]

I think the problem is that 'char' is a word (meaning to scortch or
partially burn) and some recognize it as that and use that
pronunciation whereas others use the "It's the first four letters of
character" rationale. I can't for the life of me figure out how
'car' gets into the mix as a pronunciation as that isn't related to
anything.

It's how the first four letters in character are pronunced.
Very roughly, of course. (I'd say that the a in character was
somewhat more anterior than that in char. But it's certainly
not the [E:j] of care.)

It's not [E:j], it's "er" in the US.

"Care" is pronounced with a dipthong in pretty much every
English dialect: it's [keIr]. (I would have expected the length
to be indicated, whence the : in my transcription. I also would
have expected the semivowel to have been represented by a [j],
and not , but I'm probably wrong there.)

And, however strange it might sound, the word "character" has two
pronunciations and the pronunciation of 'care' is the beginning of
one of them. It can be specific to American English, though.

It must be an innovation in the last 30 or so years, then,
because it certainly wasn't the case when I was growing up in
America. The online American Heritage Dictionary doesn't seem
to know about it either. The word "care" is pronounced either
[keIr] (American) or [ke] (British). The word "character" is
pronounced ['k&r@ktR] (American) or ['k&r@kt@] (British). At
least according to the dictionaries I have access to, and from
my own experience (growing up in the United States, working with
many British people).

 

[James Kanze]

That may be true in your area, but here the first syllable of
"character" is the same as "care". Are you in an area where
Mary/merry/marry are not the same, perhaps?

Where is your area? I grew up north of Chicago. My mother is
from Atlanta. Both regions use a very open short a (IPA &) in
character, and this is the only sound given in all of the
dictionaries I have access to. (And yes, I've always
distinguished between Mary/merry/marry. And of course, the
dictionaries give "standard" pronounciation, which also
distinguishes between the three.)

 

[Default User]

Where is your area?

I'm in St. Louis, which is a "Mary is merry is marry" region.

I grew up north of Chicago. My mother is
from Atlanta. Both regions use a very open short a (IPA &) in
character, and this is the only sound given in all of the
dictionaries I have access to. (And yes, I've always
distinguished between Mary/merry/marry. And of course, the
dictionaries give "standard" pronounciation, which also
distinguishes between the three.)

You are incorrect about the dictionaries. Merriam-Webster gives
multiple pronunciations for the trio, including one common one, "mer-E".

Similarly, it lists the similar sounding versions of "care" and
"character", 'ker and 'ker-ik-t&r respectively.

That also shows that "care" and "merry/marry/mary" have the same vowel
sound, which is what you find in this area.




Brian

 

[James Kanze]

I'm in St. Louis, which is a "Mary is merry is marry" region.

You are incorrect about the dictionaries. Merriam-Webster
gives multiple pronunciations for the trio, including one
common one, "mer-E".

The American Heritage Dictionary only gives one for each.
Different each time. I'm not too sure what Merriam-Webster (or
the American Heritage Dictionary, for that matter) is actually
documenting; intuitively, I would say that if some significant
dialects make a phonemic distinction, then the difference is
phonemic, even if other dialects pronounce both phonemes
identically. (But the issue is significantly more complicated
than that. Thus, for example, the merging of /&/ and /e/ may
only occur before an r, with the dialect regularly
distinguishing them elsewhere.) And that normally, in a
dictionary, I would expect only the phonemics, and not all of
the phonetic variants.

My understanding of the question was that there were three
separate phonemes involved, but that certain regions regularly
pronounced two (or all three) of the phonemes identically.

Any real personal experience, of course, is limited by the fact
that I've not actually lived in the United States for close to
40 years. Language varies in time, and my appreciation of it as
a youth is not what it is now either. I can't ever remember
having heard that Mary/merry/marry might not be distinctive
until recently; that could be because the language has changed,
and the merging of the sounds is recent, but it could just as
well be because I didn't pay any attention to that sort of thing
when I was (very) young.

Similarly, it lists the similar sounding versions of "care" and
"character", 'ker and 'ker-ik-t&r respectively.

Again, American Heritage gives only one for each: [k&r@t@r] and
[keIr] (transcribed into IPA---both the Merriam-Webster and the
American Heritage dictionaries actually use something of their
own invention). This is the way I learned it, back in the early
1960's, a little north of Chicago. My mother (from Georgia)
didn't pronounce things the way I heard them in school---in fact,
some of my school friends had trouble understanding her
English---but she also made this distinction in the vowels.

That also shows that "care" and "merry/marry/mary" have the
same vowel sound, which is what you find in this area.

Just curious, but would "scary" and "carry" rhyme where you are?
To me, they have radically different sounds. But then, so do
Mary and marry. Or care and character. In all three cases,
the first has a long medium high medium closed front vowel,
trailing into a high closed front semi-vowel at the end (making
it a dipthong), where as the second has a short, relatively low,
relatively open front vowel, something between an a and an open
e in other western European languages.

And is the distinction also lost if the vowel isn't followed by
an r, e.g. Kate and cat, or bat, bait and bet?

 

[Default User]

James Kanze wrote:

The American Heritage Dictionary only gives one for each.

Fortunately, it's not the only dictionary. A goodly part of the US is
MIMIM territory.

Different each time. I'm not too sure what Merriam-Webster (or
the American Heritage Dictionary, for that matter) is actually
documenting;

Differing pronounciations for the words, some of which are same, and
sounding similar to words like "pair" or "rare".

My understanding of the question was that there were three
separate phonemes involved, but that certain regions regularly
pronounced two (or all three) of the phonemes identically.

Yes, usually called a merger. For instance, many areas in the western
part of the US have lost the distinction between "Don" and "Dawn". In
alt.usage.english terms this is DID (Don is Dawn). St. Louis remains a
DIND area.

Any real personal experience, of course, is limited by the fact
that I've not actually lived in the United States for close to
40 years.

Ah, well.

Similarly, it lists the similar sounding versions of "care" and
"character", 'ker and 'ker-ik-t&r respectively.

Again, American Heritage gives only one for each: [k&r@t@r] and
[keIr] (transcribed into IPA---both the Merriam-Webster and the
American Heritage dictionaries actually use something of their
own invention).

Sounds like AH is behind the times in recording actual usage.

Just curious, but would "scary" and "carry" rhyme where you are?

Yep.

To me, they have radically different sounds. But then, so do
Mary and marry. Or care and character.

Years ago on another newsgroup, someone pointed out a big mistake
they'd spotted on the TV ER. It seems that one of the characters was
named "Kerry" according to her ID, but they pronounced it "Carrie". To
which many wondering what the person was talking about.

And is the distinction also lost if the vowel isn't followed by
an r, e.g. Kate and cat, or bat, bait and bet?

No.




Brian

 

[James Kanze]

Fortunately, it's not the only dictionary. A goodly part of the US is
MIMIM territory.

So I've read. It surprises me some; I don't think that this was
the case 35 or more years ago.

Still, the question remains: is the dictionary specifying
phonetics or phonemics. If it's trying for phonetics, I fear
it's a hopeless cause; there are so many small variations in
pronounciation. If it's phonemics... Is there really a phonemic
difference, or is it just the case of certain speakers realizing
different phonemes in the same way, at least in some contexts.

Differing pronounciations for the words, some of which are same, and
sounding similar to words like "pair" or "rare".

By "pronounciation", do you mean phonetic or phonemic. From a
quick glance, I didn't have the impression, for example, that it
reflected the different pronunciations of the -er ending. (A
very old distinction: New England and the south east don't
distinguish between [@r] and [@], where as most of the rest of
the country does. Or at least, that was the case 35 years ago.)

Yes, usually called a merger. For instance, many areas in the western
part of the US have lost the distinction between "Don" and "Dawn". In
alt.usage.english terms this is DID (Don is Dawn). St. Louis remains a
DIND area.

That's also been around for awhile. Even when I was there.
But as you say, regional; there were two phonemes, but some
regions (not the ones I lived in) realized them in the same way.

Ah, well.

Similarly, it lists the similar sounding versions of "care" and
"character", 'ker and 'ker-ik-t&r respectively.

Again, American Heritage gives only one for each: [k&r@t@r] and
[keIr] (transcribed into IPA---both the Merriam-Webster and the
American Heritage dictionaries actually use something of their
own invention).

Sounds like AH is behind the times in recording actual usage.

Or... They're recording pure phonemes. Even Merriam-Webster has
to describe how different phonemes are realized differently in
different areas. The final -er in "father" is (or was---but I
think it still is) pronounced very differently in the south east
than in the mid-west, but it's still the same phoneme. And the
fact that the final -er in father is pronounced the same as the
final -a in opera in Georgia doesn't mean that there are two
possible phonemic pronunciations of one of the words; it simply
means that in some areas, the realization of the two phonemes
has merged.

Yep.

Interesting. Now I'm really curious. You wouldn't happen to
know of a site which had more information about this.
Particularly concerning the history of this evolution; as I
said, I don't recall having heard about it when I was living in
America.

Of course, if scary and carry rhyme, then the question as to
whether "char" rhymes with the first sylable of scary, or the
first of carry, is rather awkward. I've always pronounced it
like the first sylable of carry. If this is the same as "care",
then we are both right. For your dialect.

(BTW: I don't mean anything pejorative by dialect here. I just
don't know a more appropriate word.)

Years ago on another newsgroup, someone pointed out a big mistake
they'd spotted on the TV ER. It seems that one of the characters was
named "Kerry" according to her ID, but they pronounced it "Carrie". To
which many wondering what the person was talking about.

No.

OK. So it's a conditional merging.

 

[Default User]

I'm going to "move" this to alt.usage.english, as we've drifted fairly
far from anything topical. As such, I've cross-posted to aue and set
follow-ups, and I haven't trimmed some of the things I normally would.

For aue: the subthread began regarding the pronunciation C++ datatype
"char", which gets its name from the word "character". The three usual
ways are as in the word "char" (as in burn), "care", or "car". This
lead to discussion of how "character" in pronounced.

So I've read. It surprises me some; I don't think that this was
the case 35 or more years ago.

I don't know. I don't recall there ever being a distinction, but you'd
have to go back in time and ask my teenage self to be sure.

Still, the question remains: is the dictionary specifying
phonetics or phonemics. If it's trying for phonetics, I fear
it's a hopeless cause; there are so many small variations in
pronounciation. If it's phonemics... Is there really a phonemic
difference, or is it just the case of certain speakers realizing
different phonemes in the same way, at least in some contexts.

What Merriam-Webster online says for "carry" is:

Pronunciation: \ka-re, 'ker-e\

What that means in terms of phonetics, I couldn't say. There are
extended characters in the line above which may not translate
correctly. The final symbol is an e with a line over it.

Differing pronounciations for the words, some of which are same, and
sounding similar to words like "pair" or "rare".

By "pronounciation", do you mean phonetic or phonemic. From a
quick glance, I didn't have the impression, for example, that it
reflected the different pronunciations of the -er ending. (A
very old distinction: New England and the south east don't
distinguish between [@r] and [@], where as most of the rest of
the country does. Or at least, that was the case 35 years ago.)

I don't know. If my father weren't dead, I'd ask him. He was a
professor who specialized in reading.

Yes, usually called a merger. For instance, many areas in the
western part of the US have lost the distinction between "Don" and
"Dawn". In alt.usage.english terms this is DID (Don is Dawn). St.
Louis remains a DIND area.

That's also been around for awhile. Even when I was there.
But as you say, regional; there were two phonemes, but some
regions (not the ones I lived in) realized them in the same way.

Ah, well.

Similarly, it lists the similar sounding versions of "care" and
"character", 'ker and 'ker-ik-t&r respectively.
Again, American Heritage gives only one for each: [k&r@t@r] and
[keIr] (transcribed into IPA---both the Merriam-Webster and the
American Heritage dictionaries actually use something of their
own invention).

Sounds like AH is behind the times in recording actual usage.

Or... They're recording pure phonemes. Even Merriam-Webster has
to describe how different phonemes are realized differently in
different areas. The final -er in "father" is (or was---but I
think it still is) pronounced very differently in the south east
than in the mid-west, but it's still the same phoneme. And the
fact that the final -er in father is pronounced the same as the
final -a in opera in Georgia doesn't mean that there are two
possible phonemic pronunciations of one of the words; it simply
means that in some areas, the realization of the two phonemes
has merged.

Yep.

Interesting. Now I'm really curious. You wouldn't happen to
know of a site which had more information about this.
Particularly concerning the history of this evolution; as I
said, I don't recall having heard about it when I was living in
America.

Of course, if scary and carry rhyme, then the question as to
whether "char" rhymes with the first sylable of scary, or the
first of carry, is rather awkward. I've always pronounced it
like the first sylable of carry. If this is the same as "care",
then we are both right. For your dialect.

(BTW: I don't mean anything pejorative by dialect here. I just
don't know a more appropriate word.)

Years ago on another newsgroup, someone pointed out a big mistake
they'd spotted on the TV ER. It seems that one of the characters was
named "Kerry" according to her ID, but they pronounced it "Carrie".
To which many wondering what the person was talking about.

No.

OK. So it's a conditional merging.

Those don't really seem to me to be of the same sort, but I'm not a
linguistics expert.





Brian

 

[Jerry Coffin]

[ ... ]

Interesting. Now I'm really curious. You wouldn't happen to
know of a site which had more information about this.
Particularly concerning the history of this evolution; as I
said, I don't recall having heard about it when I was living in
America.

It's light on detail, but you might find this interesting:

http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test3materials/AmericanDialects
..htm