New answers tagged speech
Just in case you are interested in how 24-hour format used in other countries. I am Russian, living in Russia, and 24-hour clock is pretty common here. Here is some facts about it: Beside the military and such (like police, navigation services etc.), it is common in TV schedules, which means every Russian uses it. We always use dividers between hours and ...
This is a frequent type of mispronunciation, where one speech sound occurs too early or too late. If a sound is produced too early, i.e., the error occurs before the source, then it is called an anticipatory error ("pork and walk", anticipation of vowel sound). If the error occurs after the source, then it is called a perseveration ("park and wark", ...
Choral performances (as in the case of a glee club) are not good sources for verifying issues of pronunciation, because it is commonplace in choral performances to alter pronunciation of words for musical reasons. One of the substitutions commonly made is to replace an initial "i" sound as you cite. The reason is that the "i" sound in "infantry" is ...
The pronunciation [ˈinfəntrē] is the right one. But it can be heard as infantri in some accents because of the sound similarity between [ə] and [a].
In all likelihood, the meaning as intended by the original author cannot be expressed exactly in speech. As it appears on the page, '%' is one of several possible glyphs that represent the same grapheme - a semantically meaningful unit of a written language. The equivalent unit in spoken language is a phoneme. Two separate terms exist because there is not ...
All symbols prepresent a shorthand and as such were never intended to be spoken except in cases like "I gave 100%" where 100% can be spelled out as "100 percent" with no awkwardness at all in spoken language. Your examples containing "symbol %" or "symbol: %" could be invereted and articulated with pretty adequate results if you invert the verbalization to ...
You can't really read the first 2 sentences out loud. They are clearly written to be read rather than listened to because they are showing you what a percent sign looks like. If you were speaking, and trying to tell someone what the percent sign looks like, you might start by saying something like "The percent sign is used to represent percent," but then ...
There are no hard and fast rules that I'm aware of, but if I were reading it out loud, I would probably read the string "the symbol %" as "the percent symbol". If possible, I'd make notations in the text to remind me to do the transposition; otherwise it would be pretty easy to stumble over.
No, that's acceptable in writing. When you are giving a lecture or making a speech, you'd better say something like: "As I have already mentioned." "As I have mentioned before." "As I have mentioned previously." "The machine is incomplete and will not function for the purpose I have just mentioned/for that purpose/for that specific purpose/for the ...
"Above-mentioned" wouldn't be a good chose nor very clear because the listener would be wondering "above what?" "above where?". For your example, you could use aforementioned: Ra: I am Ra. The machine is incomplete and will not function for the aforementioned purpose. Per MWO: aforementioned: mentioned previously
When speaking, I'd say it's best to substitute "mentioned above" with something like "mentioned previously" or "as stated before." Something along those lines. Written prose is often presented in column form (e.g. reading down a page), so it is sensible to come across a "mentioned above" since it accurately references its context. In spoken prose however, ...
Mentioned above is a more typical phrase in writing than it would be in speaking. In speech, I would expect to hear as I said previously or as previously mentioned, or something similar.
It is a perfectly usual way of speaking, which I have used and heard used over the last seven decades. The interrogative is effected by a change in voice pitch, which makes it clear that it is a question you are asking. In written form the question mark is essential. It can, if not used with care, be misinterpreted as a statement rather than a question. ...
I brushed against the book implies that I didn't purposefully touch the book. I may have felt it or not. 'Touch' gives the connotation, whether active or passive, of someone being aware of/feeling the touching.
I believe the idea of touch sounds intentional alone, thus just adding an adverb would suffice, such as ... I accidentally/mistakenly touched the book. It does sound slightly foreign in speech, using the word touch by accident, so perhaps refer to ...I accidentally knocked/brushed/moved the book. Or switch perspective, and start I didn't realise that I ...
One alternative is to switch tense: I suddenly realized that the book and I were touching. This doesn't place any intent on either object involved (you or the book).
You would also say I touched the book. Although it's a strange thing to say, because what does it matter? Books exist to be touched, after all, and especially to be read. If it matters to you that it's accidental, say I touched the book accidentally. Touch is a Sense Verb, and they have special syntactic affordances. You're talking about the Volitional ...
If a book is sitting on a table, and you reach out and make contact with it, you do touch the book. But if the book is sitting precariously on the table, and falls off and makes contact with your leg as you walk by, without any action on your part, then, in theory, you could say that the book touched you. The problem with this is that "touch" has an ...
You could use hit for kids. if you fall down in the floor, your head will hit the floor. Strike would be more appropriate for adults. if you fall down in the floor, your head will strike the floor. Although I would not use will. I suggest could: if you fall down in the floor, your head could hit the floor. because your head might not hit ...
Perhaps developing an ear by listening spoken English would be of tremendous help. I think key to speaking fluently is internalizing the "rhythm" of the dialect you would like to speak. Of course you should imitate or in real life situations speak as much as you can as you are developing it.
I don't think née works in this context, because it sounds more like a negation. Fair enough, but the spoken English form of née remains, née. But if you've a personal dislike for it, by all means just translate it; "…who was born…".
In Irish, Ní means ‘daughter of’ and Mac/de means ‘son of’. So a name such as Mary Burke in Irish is Maire Ní Buirce, which means Mary daughter of Burke, and Sean de Buirce means John son of Burke. It can also be used in this context — e.g., Mary Murphy Nee Burke: Mary Murphy daughter of Burke. Née is so well used in everyday life now that formerly, ...
How about simply translating née into English, giving born? "Jane Smith (born Doe)" For an example of usage, see this web page Additionally, see this definition (1b): used for saying that someone had a particular condition, personal quality, name, or social status at the time when they were born [...] e.g. Elton John, born Reginald Dwight.
Apart from née itself, I'm not sure if there is any word that conveys exactly the meaning you want. Instead of formerly, you could use originally or previously but they mean exactly the same thing. The only thing I can think of is formerly or formerly known as, but those almost sound like something you would say about a criminal to me. I understand ...
Top 50 recent answers are included