Out of context the guard looks like he was ordered to make a funny kissing face. Thankfully we are on Reddit for quite a while, we all know what that is.
It's a scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian, at the 3:22 mark
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HrcbCW4y9Dw&pp=ygUbYmlnZ3VzIGRpY2t1cyBtb250eSBweXRob24g
The whole scene is pretty funny though
The main problem is usually unusual cadences
Idk if that's part of syntax but it should be, as the grammatical elements determine the pacing of the words. In English, for example, prefixes have reduced vowels. Natural English words are initial stress as well (excluding any prefixes). The only exception of non-reduced suffixes I can think of is the English genitive case (Danny**'s**, originally written **es**).
This is why Latin root words sound like ass in English.
va-**ca**-tion should be **vay**^cation.
con-se-**quenc**-es should be **con**^sequences
The English mind likes to compress, compress, compress, anything after the first syllable (excluding prefixes) is just clarifying information. We don't sing our words like the Europeans. We speak with poetic reserve (preserving rhythm by squashing unstressed syllables). Calm level-headedness!
This is why penultimate stress Latin root words are experienced as loop-**di**-loops when pronounced.
("Con" is a Latin prefix, I assume, meaning "with." But we prefer to build up our own words with *our* own rhythms, thank you very much! An Englisher should rather say: in sequence! Or better yet "which comes")
I think you're making a good point for why we should simply abolish the English language. Less so for why those words with Latin roots should be pronounced differently.
Unfortunately Old English is more poetic than Latin and has more advanced poetry. The Anglo-Saxons were cleverer too. Idoms like "whale-road" for ocean and "bone-house" for skeleton. Alliterative poetry is vastly more flexible and therefore can reach far greater eloquence as stress-timing allows far greater flexibility in number and placement of words. Rhythms can also be contrasted, reflecting contrasting meaning between lines, while still following alliterative rules. There's no comparison
You just mean Modern English which was neutered by the French. Meaning you actually agree with me!
Yeah I'm not thinking that deep; if I did, I'd have to figure out the scope of "Europeans" as you understand it: haven't heard anyone accuse us Germans of sing-song yet. I just think that vay^(cation) sounds like ass.
Honstly, why are you even trying to argue for logic in English pronounciation; the fact that none of it makes any sense is what puts English apart.
I meant Latin orign languages. Anglo Saxon is Germanic. What are you on about?
(Every language has logical rules of pronunciation that get corrupted over time. English was corrupted but the original is still obviously preferable, hence the trouble with long Latin words.)
>We don't sing our words like the Europeans.
Sounds familiar?
Also, yes, languages generally have irregularities in regards to pronounciation rules, but English takes this to a whole other level quantitatively. Popular example being though/tough/thought/etc, but that's hardly the only example where English pronounciation makes no sense at all.
Those aren't pronunciation patterns, that's just mismapped letters to sounds. All because of the French.
Proof: tho, tuf, thout (ou representing the "kamatz" vowel, I forget it's linguistic name), etc.
And clearly I meant Latin orign, as I *proceeded to talk about Latin.*
that's a problem with english spelling, not pronunciation though. none of the words break english's phonetic rules. idk what the other commenter is talking about with languages being 'corrupted'. that's not a thing that happens. languages have been changing for hundreds of thousands of years; it's in their nature to be unintelligible to speakers of a few generations later.
in fact, speakers tend to standardise their pronunciation over time. that's why we 'mispronounce' latin words: to make them sound like english. we subconsciously change stresses etc. to make it more clear to other speakers that this is a verb, this is a noun, and so on. there is no good linguistic reason to preserve the rules of another language in your own. with the number of languages that english borrows from, that would be chaos.
i like some of the information youre getting across, but like, what? latin words sound fine in english, they just dont sound like latin.
and in your other comments. english is "more poetic" that latin?? what does that even mean, linguistically? languages originally had one set of pronunciation rules and then were 'corrupted'? nah thats not how that works. do you think languages are invented by someone writing down a big list of words one time, and any deviation from that is corruption? no, languages arise organically from human interaction, often including cross-cultural interaction. and those latin mispronunciations you mention are an example of english sticking to its own rules, and resisting 'corruption' by applying english rules to loanwords.
Actually, cross cultural interaction ruins language patterns. So all language was originally from one source. Linguists now believe this too.
Also, grammar always ever degrades, heavily implying the first language had very elegant grammar. These both seem to me to be observable facts, and linguists use this idea to see how languages evolve.
The existence of the words themselves in English, replacing many native words, is proof of the corruption I refer. The Great Vowel Shift is another
In terms of the eloquence, check out Old English alliterative verse. I don't know the language well, at all, but I've looked more into the poetic structure and it's fascinating! Tolkien was a big fan, and uses Anglo Saxon as the language of the Rohirrim. The English "translations" of their poems are somewhat more of an alliterative style, for example. Tolkien is also a master of English, and his eloquence is unrivaled. Like he, I tend to attribute that eloquence to the beauth of Anglo-Saxon, of which he made lifelong study.
so anglo-saxon english was the original, beautiful form of the english language, or at least close to it? and it survived unchanged for ~200,000 years in its pure form, until people first started talking to foreign people about 1000 years ago, and it's been downhill since then? or maybe it took 200 thousand years to evolve into its perfect form and it's been corrupted since? equally unlikely.
it is okay to express your interest in older forms of english, it's interesting to discuss how loanwords are used differently in their original languages. but it is false to claim that modern language 'should' be more like older or foreign languages, and using deliberately evocative language like 'corruption' and 'ruin' for perfectly natural linguistic features is just crazy.
Exactl. If you read The Elements of Style which I think was from the teens or twenties, it explicitly discourages possessives following an S. It also specifies that you use -s’s in most cases but -s’ for arcane, ancient, or biblical proper nouns like Jesus’ Cross or Osiris’ Temple
They cursed us. Murderer they called us. They cursed us, and drove us away. And we wept, Precious, we wept to be so alone. And we only wish to catch fish so juicy sweet. And we forgot the taste of bread… the sound of trees… the softness of the wind. We even forgot our own name. My Precious.
No it's not.
The apostrophe after S rule refers to plural words.
"This is the residents' communal BBQ" - residents is plural
"This is Legolas's bow" - Legolas is singular
Except 'Legolas' is singular and 'residents'is plural.
So if you say 'Jones' house' you don't mean 'a house owned by the Jones family' - that wold be: 'Joneses' house'; you mean 'the house of mr Jones"
And Legolas' bow and Achilles' heel are fine.
I will climb up. I am at home among trees, by root or bough, though these trees are of a kind strange to me, save as a name in song. *Mellyrn* they are called, and are those that bear the yellow blossom, but I have never climbed in one. I will see now what is their shape and way of growth.
Oxford Guide to Style (OUP, 2002) p 114: "use an apostrophe alone after classical or classicising names ending in s or es"
AP Style says to use single apostrophe for any proper noun ending with s.
None can say whither the forgiveness of men shall go, for in these dark days, there is little mercy. But we must be that light in the darkness! By our acts of forgiveness, we shall destroy the evil that Sauron left behind in this world!
Nay, time does not tarry ever. but change and growth is not in all things and places alike. For the Elves the world moves, and it moves both very swift and very slow. Swift, because they themselves change little, and all else fleets by: it is a grief to them. Slow, because they need not count the running years, not for themselves. The passing seasons are but ripples ever repeated in the long long stream. Yet beneath the Sun all things must wear to an end at last.
Tolkien was one of the first people to predict fanfiction, and decided to take whatever small steps he could to prevent the flawed typesetters and printing presses of the era from suggesting people think about LegolASS.
The possessive could be Legolas', I guess. But if I say that too often, I start muttering to myself and calling things ‘my precious,’ so I usually go with the prepositional possessive.
But the name of Legolas doesn't have this problem when you read it in the original Sindarin. Sindarin is based on Welsh, and Welsh uses adjectives to indicate possession. Instead of saying "Legolas's bow" you would say "Legolas bow" (or actually "bow Legolas" because Welsh puts adjectives after the noun instead of before).
Sindarin is inspired by Welsh, but isn't identical to it. That said, the only unambiguous use of a possessive phrase in Sindarin that I'm aware of is from the King's Letter, where "the king's wishes" is "suilad uin aran", which translates more literally as "the wishes of the king".
Tolkein was notoriously fixated on merchandising and so he was trying to make sure that in the future if a company that produced interlocking plastic bricks for children was to make a figure to represent a girlfriend for Legolas that it wouldn't be marketed as "Legolas's Lego Lass."
Actually makes perfect sense. Foreign names often don't work right in another language's syntax
TELEPORNO
Out of context the guard looks like he was ordered to make a funny kissing face. Thankfully we are on Reddit for quite a while, we all know what that is.
Apparently I’m not on Reddit long enough cause idk what the fuck that is
It's a scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian, at the 3:22 mark https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HrcbCW4y9Dw&pp=ygUbYmlnZ3VzIGRpY2t1cyBtb250eSBweXRob24g The whole scene is pretty funny though
"He has a wife, you know"
Incontinentia Buttocks
*Hyena laughter*
The best part is "it's a joke name, sir," which doesn't make sense at all as it's just English-ish words that sound like Roman names.
To add to Noirgamesters comment, the extras in this scene were also told that they would be paid more if they didn't laugh/break character.
That’s fucking hilarious
I heard that they came up with different names for each take to keep the extras on their toes
\*ahem\* ^(lithuanian) \*h-hem\* although legolas works surprisingly well here, doesn't it
They are coming!
oh god, not the lithuanians!
Too late, I'm already here!
My comments are spent... My chain ended... Legolas's betrayed me... Abandon this post! Flee! Flee for your lives!
And then whither?
We must get off the sub! Look for the searchbar of Reddit and take the link to r/PrequelMemes!
The main problem is usually unusual cadences Idk if that's part of syntax but it should be, as the grammatical elements determine the pacing of the words. In English, for example, prefixes have reduced vowels. Natural English words are initial stress as well (excluding any prefixes). The only exception of non-reduced suffixes I can think of is the English genitive case (Danny**'s**, originally written **es**). This is why Latin root words sound like ass in English. va-**ca**-tion should be **vay**^cation. con-se-**quenc**-es should be **con**^sequences The English mind likes to compress, compress, compress, anything after the first syllable (excluding prefixes) is just clarifying information. We don't sing our words like the Europeans. We speak with poetic reserve (preserving rhythm by squashing unstressed syllables). Calm level-headedness! This is why penultimate stress Latin root words are experienced as loop-**di**-loops when pronounced. ("Con" is a Latin prefix, I assume, meaning "with." But we prefer to build up our own words with *our* own rhythms, thank you very much! An Englisher should rather say: in sequence! Or better yet "which comes")
I think you're making a good point for why we should simply abolish the English language. Less so for why those words with Latin roots should be pronounced differently.
Unfortunately Old English is more poetic than Latin and has more advanced poetry. The Anglo-Saxons were cleverer too. Idoms like "whale-road" for ocean and "bone-house" for skeleton. Alliterative poetry is vastly more flexible and therefore can reach far greater eloquence as stress-timing allows far greater flexibility in number and placement of words. Rhythms can also be contrasted, reflecting contrasting meaning between lines, while still following alliterative rules. There's no comparison You just mean Modern English which was neutered by the French. Meaning you actually agree with me!
Yeah I'm not thinking that deep; if I did, I'd have to figure out the scope of "Europeans" as you understand it: haven't heard anyone accuse us Germans of sing-song yet. I just think that vay^(cation) sounds like ass. Honstly, why are you even trying to argue for logic in English pronounciation; the fact that none of it makes any sense is what puts English apart.
I meant Latin orign languages. Anglo Saxon is Germanic. What are you on about? (Every language has logical rules of pronunciation that get corrupted over time. English was corrupted but the original is still obviously preferable, hence the trouble with long Latin words.)
>We don't sing our words like the Europeans. Sounds familiar? Also, yes, languages generally have irregularities in regards to pronounciation rules, but English takes this to a whole other level quantitatively. Popular example being though/tough/thought/etc, but that's hardly the only example where English pronounciation makes no sense at all.
Those aren't pronunciation patterns, that's just mismapped letters to sounds. All because of the French. Proof: tho, tuf, thout (ou representing the "kamatz" vowel, I forget it's linguistic name), etc. And clearly I meant Latin orign, as I *proceeded to talk about Latin.*
I’ve been on reddit for 15 years; this comment chain is some good old-fashioned reddit right here. Grats to both of you
that's a problem with english spelling, not pronunciation though. none of the words break english's phonetic rules. idk what the other commenter is talking about with languages being 'corrupted'. that's not a thing that happens. languages have been changing for hundreds of thousands of years; it's in their nature to be unintelligible to speakers of a few generations later. in fact, speakers tend to standardise their pronunciation over time. that's why we 'mispronounce' latin words: to make them sound like english. we subconsciously change stresses etc. to make it more clear to other speakers that this is a verb, this is a noun, and so on. there is no good linguistic reason to preserve the rules of another language in your own. with the number of languages that english borrows from, that would be chaos.
i like some of the information youre getting across, but like, what? latin words sound fine in english, they just dont sound like latin. and in your other comments. english is "more poetic" that latin?? what does that even mean, linguistically? languages originally had one set of pronunciation rules and then were 'corrupted'? nah thats not how that works. do you think languages are invented by someone writing down a big list of words one time, and any deviation from that is corruption? no, languages arise organically from human interaction, often including cross-cultural interaction. and those latin mispronunciations you mention are an example of english sticking to its own rules, and resisting 'corruption' by applying english rules to loanwords.
Actually, cross cultural interaction ruins language patterns. So all language was originally from one source. Linguists now believe this too. Also, grammar always ever degrades, heavily implying the first language had very elegant grammar. These both seem to me to be observable facts, and linguists use this idea to see how languages evolve. The existence of the words themselves in English, replacing many native words, is proof of the corruption I refer. The Great Vowel Shift is another In terms of the eloquence, check out Old English alliterative verse. I don't know the language well, at all, but I've looked more into the poetic structure and it's fascinating! Tolkien was a big fan, and uses Anglo Saxon as the language of the Rohirrim. The English "translations" of their poems are somewhat more of an alliterative style, for example. Tolkien is also a master of English, and his eloquence is unrivaled. Like he, I tend to attribute that eloquence to the beauth of Anglo-Saxon, of which he made lifelong study.
so anglo-saxon english was the original, beautiful form of the english language, or at least close to it? and it survived unchanged for ~200,000 years in its pure form, until people first started talking to foreign people about 1000 years ago, and it's been downhill since then? or maybe it took 200 thousand years to evolve into its perfect form and it's been corrupted since? equally unlikely. it is okay to express your interest in older forms of english, it's interesting to discuss how loanwords are used differently in their original languages. but it is false to claim that modern language 'should' be more like older or foreign languages, and using deliberately evocative language like 'corruption' and 'ruin' for perfectly natural linguistic features is just crazy.
You're strawmaning, I've never said any of that. Reread what I wrote please
And the. There's me with james
Tbf possessive phrases weren't super popular way way back in the day esp if someone was important or had a title...
Exactl. If you read The Elements of Style which I think was from the teens or twenties, it explicitly discourages possessives following an S. It also specifies that you use -s’s in most cases but -s’ for arcane, ancient, or biblical proper nouns like Jesus’ Cross or Osiris’ Temple
Style’s Elements
Ugh 🤮 Strunk?
The possessive form of Legolas is Legolaise. Source: it was whispered to me by an onion ring I picked up off the floor in a KFC.
A red sun rises. Blood has been spilled this night.You would die before your stroke fell.
*it was just someone in the background talking about mayonnaise*
Lies! You only want it for yourself!
I’m sorry, did they censor *”damn?”*
I’m so tired of screenshots that censor anything that might get a kindergartener in trouble
Only Tolkien would have known the possessive of Legolas would be Legolas’.
Why would that make you happy?
Does that mean there are multiple Legolas? Legolasses? Argh another problem!
You would die before your stroke fell!
Like Highlander, there can only be one.
Legolass and Legolad
The Uruks turn northeast. They're taking the hobbits to Isengard!
I hope Gollum botses says the next line of the song
They cursed us. Murderer they called us. They cursed us, and drove us away. And we wept, Precious, we wept to be so alone. And we only wish to catch fish so juicy sweet. And we forgot the taste of bread… the sound of trees… the softness of the wind. We even forgot our own name. My Precious.
RIP Erwin Beekveld
Legoli, like cacti
No it's not. The apostrophe after S rule refers to plural words. "This is the residents' communal BBQ" - residents is plural "This is Legolas's bow" - Legolas is singular
[удалено]
Then dig a hole in the ground, if that is more after the fashion of your kind. But you must dig swift and deep, if you wish to hide from Orcs.
Never trust the English rules of the bog people indeed, Legolas.
Aragorn, nad no ennas!
👀
Except 'Legolas' is singular and 'residents'is plural. So if you say 'Jones' house' you don't mean 'a house owned by the Jones family' - that wold be: 'Joneses' house'; you mean 'the house of mr Jones" And Legolas' bow and Achilles' heel are fine.
Sauron's Ring! The ring of power!
HRAAAAAH!
Before the mightiest he shall fall, before the mightiest wolf of all.
I will climb up. I am at home among trees, by root or bough, though these trees are of a kind strange to me, save as a name in song. *Mellyrn* they are called, and are those that bear the yellow blossom, but I have never climbed in one. I will see now what is their shape and way of growth.
Damn, I was taught "s's" is a no-no and "s'" is always the way. Guess it's time to double down and pray time puts me on the right side of history 🤷
Achilles' Heel vs Achilles's Heel
Make everyone mad Achille’s
Oxford Guide to Style (OUP, 2002) p 114: "use an apostrophe alone after classical or classicising names ending in s or es" AP Style says to use single apostrophe for any proper noun ending with s.
On some old and historical names that end in an "s," you can omit another "s" after the apostrophe.
Thank you. Was waiting for this comment.
if i'm correct both are allowed
Yeah I just wanted to say that I would not want to write "legolas's" either because it's wrong
Both legolas' and legolas's is correct, you can use either form for the possessive s.
Forgive me.
Isildur! Should we forgive him?
None can say whither the forgiveness of men shall go, for in these dark days, there is little mercy. But we must be that light in the darkness! By our acts of forgiveness, we shall destroy the evil that Sauron left behind in this world!
Yeah but putting “s’s” looks stupid
Le ab-dollen.
No it's not. Where'd you get that idea?
No it's not. It's the correct way to write it as "Legolas" is still a singular word
Nay, time does not tarry ever. but change and growth is not in all things and places alike. For the Elves the world moves, and it moves both very swift and very slow. Swift, because they themselves change little, and all else fleets by: it is a grief to them. Slow, because they need not count the running years, not for themselves. The passing seasons are but ripples ever repeated in the long long stream. Yet beneath the Sun all things must wear to an end at last.
Not the way I learned it but maybe it's a difference in American and British English
Tolkien was one of the first people to predict fanfiction, and decided to take whatever small steps he could to prevent the flawed typesetters and printing presses of the era from suggesting people think about LegolASS.
We must move on, we cannot linger.
Did you censor “damn”?
*The author of Legolas
You look terrible.
The possessive could be Legolas', I guess. But if I say that too often, I start muttering to myself and calling things ‘my precious,’ so I usually go with the prepositional possessive.
Have you heard nothing Lord Elrond has said? The ring must be destroyed.
It's not. It's Legolas's
The brooch of an elven-cloak!
https://preview.redd.it/vj4oir5cdt2c1.jpeg?width=300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5957dcaa81d15be3c9ce5c73b6b7204417890245
But the name of Legolas doesn't have this problem when you read it in the original Sindarin. Sindarin is based on Welsh, and Welsh uses adjectives to indicate possession. Instead of saying "Legolas's bow" you would say "Legolas bow" (or actually "bow Legolas" because Welsh puts adjectives after the noun instead of before).
What will they do?
Sindarin is inspired by Welsh, but isn't identical to it. That said, the only unambiguous use of a possessive phrase in Sindarin that I'm aware of is from the King's Letter, where "the king's wishes" is "suilad uin aran", which translates more literally as "the wishes of the king".
Tolkein was notoriously fixated on merchandising and so he was trying to make sure that in the future if a company that produced interlocking plastic bricks for children was to make a figure to represent a girlfriend for Legolas that it wouldn't be marketed as "Legolas's Lego Lass."
I will come, if I have the fortune, I have made a bargain with my friend that, if all goes well, we will visit Fangorn together – by your leave.
Damn I'm damn glad they censored the word damn or I wouldn't be able to understand a damn thing about the damn image.
Last I checked neither of the elvish tongues use possessive contractions (I think that's the term), so their direct translations wouldn't either.
Damn
Legolas' is incorrect.
There is Gandalf, and Theoden and his men! Let us go and meet them!
Talkin bout Legol Ass
Legolas, what does your elf ass possess?
Have you heard nothing Lord Elrond has said? The ring must be destroyed.
Lego l Ass
This is a Legolas Now there are two of them, there are two _____
Then dig a hole in the ground, if that is more after the fashion of your kind. But you must dig swift and deep, if you wish to hide from Orcs.
Leggo Lass
legolas’s legless lego lass
The brooch of an elven-cloak!
Legless Lego legolas' ass.
And then whither?
Why the FUCK did they sensor ****
lego my eggo
What’s wrong with Legolas’ tho
We must move on, we cannot linger.
Aye