Talk:The North Wind and the Sun

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: But if you look closely, the s are only dropped after an aspirated consonant (such as ) in which case it doesn't matter if you don't transcribe it. As for the final , if you look carefully, you'll notice that the vowels have been rhotacized. --Kjoonlee 06:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? Today I noticed that pre-vocalic R has indeed been dropped, in stronger of. --Kjoonlee 01:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it hasn't. It's transcribed  with the rhotacized schwa . —Angr 06:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't the r still be pronounced in front of the vowel? --Kjoonlee 14:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  or something similar, perhaps. --Kjoonlee 14:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  and  are distinct; presumably "Paint the loo for Red" with  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  shined  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Naturalness 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Use of the word "had" means one force is stronger than another force 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's not a mistake but an alternative transcription. I share the opinion of Geoff Lindsey that it's slightly better to write  when you also write . These five vowels form a natural class in General American, much like  in RP form a natural class with closing diphthongs, so it's better to write them . Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in the transcription