Talk:The North Wind and the Sun

shined

Any idea why the IPA uses shined rather than shone as the preterite of shine? My guess is that some Americans emulate the British and rhyme shone with gone rather than bone. jnestorius^(talk) 23:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What does the one have to do with the other? Shined is a legitimate past tense of shine; what would various pronunciations of shone have to do with anything? —Angr 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe this reflects a different BrE/AmE distinction. In BrE shined is only for shoes, not suns. jnestorius^(talk) 23:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Shined is the preferred American English word for shone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.215.96 (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Prefered by who? I usually hear "shone" or else "was shining" (DC area). I understand that both forms are correct, but I wouldn't go so far as to say one is "prefered", when that isn't really the case. Elemtilas (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

MOOM MOOM MOOM MOOM MOOM

But if you look closely, the /h/s are only dropped after an aspirated consonant (such as [kʰ]) in which case it doesn't matter if you don't transcribe it. As for the final /ɹ/, if you look carefully, you'll notice that the vowels have been rhotacized. --Kjoonlee 06:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Today I noticed that pre-vocalic R has indeed been dropped, in stronger of. --Kjoonlee 01:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No it hasn't. It's transcribed [ˈstɹɑŋgɚ] with the rhotacized schwa [ɚ]. —Angr 06:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the r still be pronounced in front of the vowel? --Kjoonlee 14:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

[stɹɑŋgɚɹəv] or something similar, perhaps. --Kjoonlee 14:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No, coda Rs still have the acoustic properties of coda Rs when they're before a vowel-initial word. John McCarthy used to have (and maybe still does have) recordings on his homepage of himself saying "Paint the loofa red" and "Paint the loo for Ed" showing that [luːfəɹɛd] and [luːfɚɛd] are distinct; presumably "Paint the loo for Red" with [luːfɚɹɛd] would be distinct from both (it certainly sounds distinct from both when I say it), though I don't think he examined that version. —Angr 14:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Thank you. :) I was assuming SAE would be like my dialect of RP regarding those Rs. --Kjoonlee 02:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The transcriptions are exactly the same although one is labelled 'narrow transcription' and the other 'broad transcription'. The broad transcription between slashes should have less detail than the narrow transcription between square brackets. Anyone who has access to the original might want to review that section?Wilma Sweden (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Naturalness

The article says this:

It has also been proposed as a parallel text in comparative linguistics as it provides more natural language than the Lord's Prayer. In other words, while the Lord's Prayer is "set in stone" and recited word-for-word even by English speakers who would never use words such as thy in conversation; the fable represents English as it would be spoken by everyday users.[citation needed] It also provides for differences within languages (dialects, national varieties)- note that a British English version would use shone instead of shined.

But seriously, how many "everyday users" would use V2 rules in English ("the more closely did the traveller wrap his cloak around him"), who aren't native speakers of German or Dutch or whatever? —Felix the Cassowary 09:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it's a little stilted compared to "the more closely the traveler wrapped his cloak around him", but it's still more natural than the Lord's Prayer, at least in its 17th century BCP version. Anyway, I think the claim was intended to be common to all languages: because it's a secular text, you can adapt it to make it sound more natural without offending anyone's religious sensibilities. +Angr 16:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Standard test item

I suggest that this be added to {{Standard test item}}. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "had" means one force is stronger than another force

The word "had" in the first paragraph under "The story and its application"

The moral of the story is persuasion is better than force. This is written in the opening. Cold is a force, and Hot is a force. The traveler HAD to keep his cloak on to stay warm when the wind blew, the traveler HAD to take his cloak off because it was too hot. In both cases it demonstrates force. When in fact the traveler did not have to take the cloak off when hot. This is the persuasion bit, he wanted to, and chose to take the cloak off. If the cloak was forced off as the word "HAD" implies, then the removal is by force, which goes against the meaning/moral of the story.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What you are arguing is a POV interpretation of linguistic use, since 'had to' can refer to the man's inner compulsion. Find a reputable source to support your objection and then suggest alternative wording. It has to be succinct, in line with the fable's style. Your earlier alternative was fussy, unencyclopaedic and inappropriate. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will review. "Persuasion is better than force", we agree is the message? The word "unencyclopaedic" does not exist to my knowledge http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unencyclopaedic. The word "had" is the past tense of "have" to be compelled, obliged, or required as in force.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Errors in the transcription

Why does the transcription write /e/ instead of /eɪ/, like in /kem/, /ˈmekɪŋ/, and /tek/? That doesn't make any sense. There's another mistake, I believe, in writing /fold/ instead of /foʊld/. Enervation (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Enervation: It's not a mistake but an alternative transcription. I share the opinion of Geoff Lindsey that it's slightly better to write /e, o/ when you also write /i, u, ɑ/. These five vowels form a natural class in General American, much like /iː, uː/ in RP form a natural class with closing diphthongs, so it's better to write them /ɪi, ʊu/. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)