Conference thebay::joyoflex

    
    The pronunciation is the same and computer folklore says there is a
    reason for that. UNIX(tm) had its roots in in a mainframe OS called
    MULTICS. But many MULTICS features had to be removed in order to make 
    an OS that would fit on minicomputers -- so when people asked, "Why do
    they call it UNIX?" the standard answer was "Because it is just MULTICS
    with its gonads whacked off.�
    
    JP
    
     �That's a radical orchidectomy for the hardcore JOYOFLEXers.

    Re .1: Thank you, John.
    		Denis.

    Not so fast, there, Podnuh!
    
    John's right that in certain dialects of American pronunciation there
    is no discernible difference between "UNIX" and "eunuchs.'  However, in
    other dialects, such as those you hear from people who have been truly
    educated in the liberal arts and who care about language, instead of
    merely having passed through a liberal-arts curriculum on the way to a
    job, there is a subtle but real difference.  (These are people for whom
    "Mary," "merry," and "marry" have three several pronunciations.  Kate
    Hepburn's or the late John Houseman's speech would illustrate the
    difference clearly.)
    
    "UNIX" is pronounced `yoo-nicks whereas "eunuchs" is pronounced
    `yoo-n<schwa>ks.
    
    -dick

    
    Yeah, you can find a difference in pronunciation, if you pursue the
    matter to some arbitrary level of precision. I've never actually spoken
    with anyone with such precise enunciation/elocution, but if I ever find
    myself discussing operating systems with the likes of Alistair Cooke, I
    will certainly take Dick's comments to heart.
    
    Deprived, as I am, of a liberal arts education, I feel unqualified to
    comment on the origins and eventual destination of the "schwa" sound.
    I do so now only because it is a rathole and therefore my duty, as a
    'LEXer in good standing, to enter it.
    
    Correct me if I'm wrong (an unnecessary request if ever I made one),
    but isn't that the sound denoted by the upside-down "e" in a
    dictionary's legend? My admittedly inferior dictionary (Webster's New
    Collegiate) has as an example of the "schwa" sound the "e" in "kitten." 
    I always took the "schwa" to be, in essence, a throwing up of the hands
    on the part of pronunciation purists. I was taught that "schwa" is
    pronounced somewhere between short e, short i, short a, etc. 
    
    So I think that to say the second syllable of "eunuchs" is the "schwa"
    sound is begging the question.  But what do I know?  In the set of
    people who still speak to me at all, "kitten" would be pronounced much
    the same if it were spelled kitten, kittan, kittin, kitton, kittyn, or
    kittun.  In fact, the best representation of the might be "kit'n" --
    that second syllable is pretty much swallowed...
    
    JP

The schwa isn't a throwing-up of hands.  It represents a mostly
undifferentiated sound of the "uh" variety but not as solid as a real
"uh" would be.  It's the second vowel sound in "bashfuL" or "bassinet"
or "bastard."  It's not quite unvoiced, as would be indicated by
"kitt'n."

-dick

    Schwa is a mid-mid unrounded vowel.  Below it is
    the low-mid vowel written in IPA as an upside-down
    "v", and above is the high-mid vowel written as
    a barred small uppercase "I".  The latter glyph is
    also used for a high-back unrounded vowel (as in
    Turkish) sometimes--I don't know which is the offical
    IPA version.
    
    There's also rounded, retroflexed, nasalized, etc.
    versions.
    
    Hardly a "beats me" symbol!
    
    		-John Bishop

    Rathole on .0, in case it might comfort you or your friend:
    
    4 years ago, when UNIX OS was already popular, I was talking in English[*]
    with an American COMPUTER ORIENTED relative.  While I thought I was talking
    about UNIX OS (YUK!!!), he had trouble understanding me and after some
    time and some weird exchanges, light descended upon me and I asked if he
    thought I was talking about E-U-N-U-C-H-S... yes, that's what he thought.
    
    [* or some descendant thereof :-)]
    
    End of rathole.
    
    -- Norman Diamond
    
    P.S.  The name schwa doesn't sound so much like a throwing up of hands,
    rather a throwing up of tongue.

    Re the few preceding ones: To continue the rathole, how do you
    pronounce the word "schwa", anyway?
    			Denis.

    Interesting question, Denis. I've often wondered about the derivation.
    It's pronounced not unlike `choix'.
    
    When I first met the word, I thought it came from that word `because'
    it was a cross between a not-very-clear A, a not-very-clear E etc -
    you pays your money and you takes your choix.
    
    I found, after not too long an exposure to the company of Daniel Jones
    (who pronounced `taxis' and `taxes' differently - neither,
    incidentally, with a schwa) that my guess must be wrong because
    the schwa and any other vowel were so clearly distinguishable
    (and, in many dialects, distinct).
    
    b

    
    Re: .7
    
    John, who determines the mapping between those IPA symbols and physical
    sounds? And how are they kept from "drifting" over time?
    
    Does the BBC have a vault of CDs that contain the standard schwa,
    etc., sounds?
    
    JP
    

    "Schwa" derives from a Hebrew word "schewa", which seems to have
    essentially the same meaning. It's shown in Hebrew by two dots (:).

    Back on the original topic, it seems to me someone's got to be 
    mumbling pretty severely for "unix" to be confused with "eunuchs".

    >> Back on the original topic, it seems to me someone's got to be 
    >> mumbling pretty severely for "unix" to be confused with "eunuchs".


	Hear, hear.

    Re .12:
    
    There is a recording somewhere. It doesn't need a vault to house it.
    The IPA chart is an absolute mapping of sounds to symbols. What
    drifts is the way a particular natural language's phonemes  (a
    different thing entirely, but with a degree of overlap, so that it
    makes sense to use a small number of IPA symbols but lineated from
    their context by slashes rather than brackets) are realized by
    different speakers. This changes over space and over time.
    
    Incidentally, the BBC has nothing to do with it - except perhaps
    organizationally at some stage. The IPA symbols don't deal exclusively
    with the speech sounds of English, but with speech sounds produced
    in all known natural languages. The `I' stands for International.
    
    Re .10
    
    My reference to Daniel Jones (who was instrumental in the drawing
    up of the IPA chart) was misleading. It wasn't Jones who said
    `taxes' and `taxis' in distinct ways. I imagine many speakers of
    English do today. I do too. The thing about Jones (like many if not most
    English-speakers of his day) is that he pronounced those two words 
    _the_same_.
    

    
    Re: 15.
    
    Thanks for the edification (that bit about the BBC was a joke, by the
    way -- I figured if any organization ought to be the keeper of the
    pronunciation flame, the beeb is it).
    
    Given that phonemes drift, we seem to have an even stickier situation
    than with the changing meaning of words.  Vocabulary definitions are
    at least loosely tied to dictionaries (which are plentiful and
    persistent). But you don't see (hear) too many renditions of these
    IPA reference recordings.
    
    Re: .13 and .14.
    
    Not exactly. My pronunciation may be atrocious but I say it loud and
    clear.
    
    JP

    The IPA is a mapping from articulations to symbols.  It's defined in
    terms of physical landmarks in the vocal tract and particular forms
    of energy release.  So it won't "drift".  IPA is not phonemes, which
    is a term implying meaningful difference from other phonemes.  When
    I was getting my Linguistics degree we didn't listen to canonical
    sounds, but learned how to make the sounds ourselves based on the
    mapping.
    
    Of course, people use the IPA to create phonemic systems, so they can
    write things like /cat/ when recording a language.  Strictly speaking
    there're a number of steps being skipped and not noted in such cases,
    and careful linguists distinguish between a transcription of a speaker
    saying a word and the string of morphophonemes which you use to enter 
    the word in a dictionary.
    
    So the process goes through a series of steps, with details dropping
    as you go, but with "meaning" being added:
    
    sounds --> phonetic transcription --> phonemic entry --> morphophonemes
               IPA used here offically
    
    In the latter two stages you need a phonemic alphabet, and most people
    use the IPA symbols "nearest" the phonemes.
    
    		-John Bishop

�    The IPA is a mapping from articulations to symbols.  
    
    Yes. The idea of recordings came up, and I ran with it. There is
    (or was) a recording, but it was in the nature of a party game
    rather than a holy grail: `Bet you can't do a labialized retroflex
    velaric click after the port has been twice round the table' - sort
    of thing.
    
    Another problem with this discussion is that there is (in this
    conference in general, rather than this note) a certain latitude
    (if not laxity) in interpretations of the term `phoneme'. This
    sort of definition belongs in a first-year essay (`Compare
    and contrast phonemes and allophones') rather than in a notes 
    file. My fault for mentioning phonemes in the first place.
    
    b

    Re .18
    
    Sorry, but I'd rather discuss the difference between pheromones and
    phonemes ;-)
    
    Nick

    
    Re: .19
    
    That would require a very cunning linguist.
    
    JP

>    Back on the original topic, it seems to me someone's got to be 
>    mumbling pretty severely for "unix" to be confused with "eunuchs".
    
    Oh I don't know.  To someone who isn't computer-oriented, "yewnicks"
    would sound close enough to "eunuchs" to be heard as that, even if that
    person normally can distinguish between a schwa and the other phoneme.
    
    --Simon
    

    >Back on the original topic, it seems to me someone's got to be 
    >mumbling pretty severely for "unix" to be confused with "eunuchs".
    
    Huh?  For both words, the first syllable is stressed, and pronounced
    with what we called in grammar school a "long U" sound; for the
    second syllable, one word uses a "short I", the other uses a schwa.
    
    Now, the "short I" sound and the schwa are different, but not *that*
    different, so the difference between UNIX and eunuchs just isn't
    that large -- unless you pronounce the two words differently than I do.
    
    					andrew

    >Back on the original topic, it seems to me someone's got to be 
    >mumbling pretty severely for "unix" to be confused with "eunuchs".
    
    >>> Huh?  For both words, the first syllable is stressed, and pronounced
    >>> with what we called in grammar school a "long U" sound; for the
    >>> second syllable, one word uses a "short I", the other uses a schwa.
    
    >>> Now, the "short I" sound and the schwa are different, but not *that*
    >>> different, so the difference between UNIX and eunuchs just isn't
    >>> that large -- unless you pronounce the two words differently than I do.
    
	Andrew, is this a response or an answer?  8^).

	Well, you know - maybe that's the problem - pronunciations certainly
	do differ here, but I have to agree with Robert (whom I happen
	to know rarely mumbles).  "You-nicks" and "you-nucks" are pretty
	different, as far as I'm concerned, and that's how they're supposed
	to be pronounced.
	
	Di

    Right, but if somebody has never heard "you-nicks", then it is far
    more likely to be heard as "you-nucks".

    >Back on the original topic, it seems to me someone's got to be 
    >mumbling pretty severely for "unix" to be confused with "eunuchs".
    
	My take on this is that someone would have to be ee-nun-cee-
	a-ting prih-tee suh-vere-lee for anyone to be able make a
	real distinction.  I mean, we are talking about real English 
	speakers in real conversations, aren't we?

		-- C

    	I have heard American speakers who seemed to think that "schwa" was
    the only vowel, nd vrn knws tht cn ndrstnd nglsh wth th vwls rmvd, but
    real English speakers live closer to Europe and in many European
    languages they are important.
    
    	With the word in isolation and possibly varying dialects I might be
    uncertain whether it was Unix or eunuchs, but after a couple of
    sentences to establish the dialect I would have no trouble
    distinguishing the two with an English speaker.

    >> Right, but if somebody has never heard "you-nicks", then it is far
    >> more likely to be heard as "you-nucks".

	That's true and you make a good point.

	Di

    >That's true and you make a good point.
    
    UNIX points often tend to be bad because of horrible syntax and
    inadequate error checking capabilities in the C language.
    
    On the other hand, EUNUCHS can't point at all.

    Methinks they point just fine; just that they can't spawn
    subprocesses...
    
    :-)
    
    

	>> do differ here, but I have to agree with Robert (whom I happen
	>> to know rarely mumbles).  "You-nicks" and "you-nucks" are pretty

	Please pardon my abuse of "whom" here.  That should be "who",
	me thinks.  Never would have gotten by in GRAMMAR 8^).
	Speaking of which, anyone know what has happened to GRAMMAR?
	Sorry if this has been answered already.


	Di

    GRAMMAR is still there, although not particularly active in the last
    couple of weeks.

.28

>   On the other hand, EUNUCHS can't point at all.

see also "null pointer"

   >> GRAMMAR is still there, although not particularly active in the last
   >> couple of weeks.

	Okay, thanks.  The node has been unreachable from here for
	over a month, but I just tried it and was successful.  Strange.

	

    A continuously decreasing portion of the English-speaking world is
    successful in reaching GRAMMAR.  In fact, even when we add the slightly
    growing number who believe themselves successful in reaching GRAMMER,
    the total is still on the decline.  We gotta face it its a dieing produckt.

Spawning subprocesses is a VMS-ism. We all know that in Eunuchs land, it's
called forking. It's debateable as to whether it's doable in this case. :-)

Wook (Back again after a long hiatus not to be confused with a hiatal hernia.)