Pet pronunciation hates

[99.94]

On ABC News Radio this morning a news reader was reading a story about an Irish tourist who had come to Sydney, been assaulted and taken home to Cork in a coma. He came out of the coma on St Patrick's Day and was now speaking.

The story quoted his cousin Seamus ( "Seemus" according to our reader) saying that it was a miracle the family put down to prayers to the "beautified" Australian nun, Mary McKillop. For clarity, the mistake was on the news reader's part, not that of the mispronounced Seamus.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by davieddy

Well I originated it, and it took off quite well.
My first you tube link was illustrating the art of pronouncing
consonants. Lavalamp described this as "just posh" and Batalov
found a more entertaining you tube link.

Dave, again, it's not the Youtube clips per se that are the problem, it`s the context-free posting thereof. If you wish to post an illustrative video or audio clip, please first give a description of what the clip contains, then give the link. Surely that small courtesy to us clickbait-wary readers could require only few seconds of extra time, probably far less than it took you to find/watch the clip.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Dave, again, it's not the Youtube clips per se that are the problem, it`s the context-free posting thereof. If you wish to post an illustrative video or audio clip, please first give a description of what the clip contains, then give the link. Surely that small courtesy to us clickbait-wary readers could require only few seconds of extra time, probably far less than it took you to find/watch the clip.

Ernie,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=439RXw-zF-o

Hope no further "context" is required.

BTW I hoped my post re E=m*c^2 in Misc Maths might have met
with agreement or refutation by now.
No one tries to say that the energy released in a chemical reaction
exemplifies E=mc^2, so how is a nuclear reaction qualitatively different?

David

[10metreh]

I haven't bothered to watch any of the videos, but if they are just telling you how to pronounce a word, then use IPA instead. If they are unrelated, start another thread.

[retina]

Originally Posted by davieddy

<snip some unknown youtube link to oblivion>

Hope no further "context" is required.

For those of us that can't view youtube, explanatory text is required, and appreciated.

Originally Posted by davieddy

BTW I hoped my post re E=m*c^2 in Misc Maths might have met
with agreement or refutation by now.
No one tries to say that the energy released in a chemical reaction
exemplifies E=mc^2, so how is a nuclear reaction qualitatively different?

Maybe no one cares?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davieddy

BTW I hoped my post re E=m*c^2 in Misc Maths might have met with agreement or refutation by now.
No one tries to say that the energy released in a chemical reaction
exemplifies E=mc^2, so how is a nuclear reaction qualitatively different?

David

I've not read the post in question, but have to take issue with "no-one tries to say .. E=mc^2". I've seen a number of statements which explicitly make that point that all forms of energy have inertial mass given precisely by Einstein's equation.

I fail to see why chemical and nuclear reactions should be qualitatively different. Perhaps I need to read the post in question. Perhaps, also, I'm unusual in having studied molecular, atomic and nuclear spectroscopy and can see that they are all fundamentally similar processes despite taking place at different (though overlapping) energy scales


Paul

P.S. If need be, I'll try to dig up such statements but can't be bothered right now.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by xilman

I've not read the post in question, but have to take issue with "no-one tries to say .. E=mc^2". I've seen a number of statements which explicitly make that point that all forms of energy have inertial mass given precisely by Einstein's equation.

I fail to see why chemical and nuclear reactions should be qualitatively different. Perhaps I need to read the post in question. Perhaps, also, I'm unusual in having studied molecular, atomic and nuclear spectroscopy and can see that they are all fundamentally similar processes despite taking place at different (though overlapping) energy scales


Paul

P.S. If need be, I'll try to dig up such statements but can't be bothered right now.

As Basil famously said to Manuel (re removing the pigeon from the
water tank before the health inspector arrived):
"This is not a proposition from Wittgenstein".

Read my (hanging fire) post in Misc Math, and agree that
converting mass into energy ala "E=mc^2" isn't as simple
as it's sometimes portrayed.

David

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davieddy

Read my (hanging fire) post in Misc Math, and agree that
converting mass into energy ala "E=mc^2" isn't as simple
as it's sometimes portrayed.

I disagree. I believe that converting mass into energy is exactly as simple as it is sometimes portrayed.

In my view, mass is energy. No conversion is necessary. What is necessary is a scaling factor to convert between units of kilograms and units of joules. That conversion factor is c^2, but we're converting the units in which we measure a quantity, not converting the quantity itself.

Another conventional conversion relates angles to distances. Specifically, degrees of longitude to nautical miles. Specifically, an angle of 1 degree may be converted to 60 nautical miles, and vice versa. Although 60 is numerically smaller than 9e16 this indicate only that the choice of conventional units are closer together in size for the geographical case.


Paul

[10metreh]

even more than before. Physics has nothing to do with pronunciation unless you're pronouncing it wrongly.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by 10metreh

even more than before. Physics has nothing to do with pronunciation unless you're pronouncing it wrongly.

We once had a cat named "Fizzicks"

OTOH I was making some enquiries at the porter's
lodge at Exeter College a couple of years back, re some reunion or
other and they thought I must have been referring to the
Psychics Dinner.

David

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by xilman

I disagree. I believe that converting mass into energy is exactly as simple as it is sometimes portrayed.

Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

Meantime I will take the time to read your post
(In my spare time of course)

David