S
server
Guest
message unavailable
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 18:05:21 +0100, SteveW wrote:
On 17/04/2023 10:14, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
\"Apparently the English used to drop the H sound as well, but in
the 19th century they brought it back. By then America had been an
independent country for many years so we kept the dropped-H
pronunciation.\"
I kind of doubt the latter, but I totally believe everything on the
WWW.
I knew why they dropped the H, but still don\'t know why the fail to
drop it on the man\'s name.
They copied the french who cannot pronounce aich, businesses thought
it sounded posh. It has now extended to \'istoric\'
I knew why they dropped the H, but still don\'t know why the fail to drop
it on the man\'s name.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1GS6gu1FgY
afaik they weren\'t called Erman\'s Ermits at least not in the US. It might
be regional but I do not drop the h in herb or any other words.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 18:05:21 +0100, SteveW wrote:
I knew why they dropped the H, but still don\'t know why the fail to drop
it on the man\'s name.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1GS6gu1FgY
afaik they weren\'t called Erman\'s Ermits at least not in the US. It might
be regional but I do not drop the h in herb or any other words.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 18:49:51 +1000, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk
wrote:
I wonder why Americans (it seems to me anyway) pronounce the H in the
the name Herb, but not in the foodstuffs?
Poms do too with the word honour.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 06:35:12 +1000, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 18:05:21 +0100, SteveW wrote:
I knew why they dropped the H, but still don\'t know why the fail to
drop it on the man\'s name.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1GS6gu1FgY
afaik they weren\'t called Erman\'s Ermits at least not in the US. It
might be regional but I do not drop the h in herb or any other words.
You sure you don\'t with the word honour ?
Exceptions prove the rule and all that. Honor and honest, but definitely
not honey. Unfortunately honor isn\'t a word that is very applicable in the
US.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 15:19:00 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 06:35:12 +1000, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 18:05:21 +0100, SteveW wrote:
I knew why they dropped the H, but still don\'t know why the fail to
drop it on the man\'s name.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1GS6gu1FgY
afaik they weren\'t called Erman\'s Ermits at least not in the US. It
might be regional but I do not drop the h in herb or any other words.
You sure you don\'t with the word honour ?
Exceptions prove the rule and all that.
Honor and honest, but definitely
not honey. Unfortunately honor isn\'t a word that is very applicable in
the
US.
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 02:11:41 +1000, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
Exceptions prove the rule and all that.
Never bought that mindlessly silly line.
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote
Exceptions prove the rule and all that.
Never bought that mindlessly silly line.
It originated when \'prove\' meant \'test\' rather than today\'s \'show to be
true\'. Hence a test area was a \'proving ground\'. Something might prove
to be a failure.
What the saying meant is that a single exception actually tests the
rule, and shows it to be false, whereas no number of compliances will
ever show the rule to be true.
Given today\'s meaning of \'prove\', the saying is now indeed just plain
silly.
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 04:07:41 +1000
\"Rod Speed\" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 02:11:41 +1000, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
Exceptions prove the rule and all that.
Never bought that mindlessly silly line.
It originated when \'prove\' meant \'test\' rather than today\'s \'show to be
true\'. Hence a test area was a \'proving ground\'. Something might prove
to be a failure.
What the saying meant is that a single exception actually tests the
rule, and shows it to be false, whereas no number of compliances will
ever show the rule to be true.
On 18/04/2023 19:49, Joe wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 04:07:41 +1000
\"Rod Speed\" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 02:11:41 +1000, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
Exceptions prove the rule and all that.
Never bought that mindlessly silly line.
It originated when \'prove\' meant \'test\' rather than today\'s \'show to be
true\'. Hence a test area was a \'proving ground\'. Something might prove
to be a failure.
What the saying meant is that a single exception actually tests the
rule, and shows it to be false, whereas no number of compliances will
ever show the rule to be true.
That sound dangerously Popperian.
Not Popperian. More Hume who formalised the \'problem of induction\'.