THAT

Daistallia · Post by **Daistallia** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:11 pm

Torco wrote:the OP does his namesake proud

LOL - indeed so.

asemic writer · Post by **asemic writer** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:50 pm

I just posted some great artwork from the French artist Jean-Christophe Giacottino. I am considering asking him to design a template for THAT: http://thatplanet.blogspot.com/

asemic writer · Post by **asemic writer** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:05 pm

The square planet by Raymond Federmann: http://www.blazevox.org/planet-sq.pdf

Grimalkin · Post by **Grimalkin** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:05 am

This is all very silly isn't it?

Kilanie · Post by **Kilanie** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 6:15 pm

Very silly.

I'm not sure if a troll would go to such lengths to be troll-y. There are much easier ways.

asemic writer · Post by **asemic writer** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 7:23 pm

Maybe I'm just the y2k computer bug.

Kvan · Post by **Kvan** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:55 pm

What we need is troll control.

copyright pending :-p

blank stare II · Post by **blank stare II** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:03 pm

Lol @ "shooting robotic arrows at synthetic buffalo"

Am I the only one who pronounces THAT like 'tat' with an aspirated first [t]?
What's the IPA for what I just said?

finlay · Post by **finlay** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:24 pm

Probably. Aspirated *initial* t would be [tʰ]. So [tʰæt] or [tʰət] or thereabouts – but remember, [tʰ] is the normal pronunciation of /t/ in this position in English.

This phoneme in 'standard' English is /ð/, though, and most people whose dialects exhibit TH-stopping would convert it to /d/. Am I right in thinking you're from somewhere like Hong Kong or Singapore? (if not, no offense meant or anything – it just rings a distant bell. could be someone else)

Ollock · Post by **Ollock** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 6:44 am

Kvan wrote:copyright pending :-p

Where in the world to copyrights pend? Here in the US, you gain copyright the instant a work is put in a publishable format, whether you formally apply for it or not.

blank stare II · Post by **blank stare II** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 8:01 pm

finlay wrote:
I wrote:How to pronounce THAT?
Aspirated *initial* t would be [tʰ]. So [tʰæt] or [tʰət] or thereabouts – but remember, [tʰ] is the normal pronunciation of /t/ in this position in English.

Is IPA for aspirated [t], /t'/? Or does this represent something else?

finlay wrote:most people whose dialects exhibit TH-stopping would convert it to /d/. Am I right in thinking you're from somewhere like Hong Kong or Singapore?

Actually, my dialect doesn't stop TH, so I guess it's weird that I didn't pronounce it as written. Maybe it was a subconscious attempt to separate the proper name THAT from the English word 'that'.
To answer your question, I am from Ohio.

Lyhoko Leaci · Post by **Lyhoko Leaci** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:17 pm

blank stare II wrote:
finlay wrote:
I wrote:How to pronounce THAT?
Aspirated *initial* t would be [tʰ]. So [tʰæt] or [tʰət] or thereabouts – but remember, [tʰ] is the normal pronunciation of /t/ in this position in English.
Is IPA for aspirated [t], /t'/? Or does this represent something else?

/t'/ is ejective. IPA for aspirated /t/ is [tʰ], I think you have the [] and // backwards... // indicates the base sound, and [] indicates how it is actually pronounced. /tʰ/ exists in some languages, but not English, which only has [tʰ] as an allophone of /t/ in certain places like the beginning of words.

blank stare II · Post by **blank stare II** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:31 pm

IPA goes in brackets []
Orthography goes in <>
Slashes are for sounds as they are supposedly pronounced, not how they are actually pronounced,

Is this right?

Lyhoko Leaci · Post by **Lyhoko Leaci** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:42 pm

IPA on its own is simply a way of writing sounds, as are various other methods like XSAMPA, so brackets just indicate how sounds are actually pronounced, independent of the system used to show those sounds. [tʰ] is IPA, [t_h] is XSAMPA, but both indicate the same sound.

Other than that, that seems correct to me.

Mashmakhan · Post by **Mashmakhan** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:24 am

@ blank stare II:

The square brackets [] are for phones or individual sounds. This doesn't need to be IPA. It can also be a form of Sampa.
The slashes // are for phonemes. For the most part, they do represent how the sound is actually pronounced. Where they don't, they are allophones.
The pointed brackets <> are for graphemes. Basically, any visual representation of the sound.

Hope this helps.

Oh, and asemic writer is definately off his rocker...but not a troll. Just very, very clueless.

dhok · Post by **dhok** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:11 am

Mashmakhan wrote:@ blank stare II:

The square brackets [] are for phones or individual sounds. This doesn't need to be IPA. It can also be a form of Sampa.
The slashes // are for phonemes. For the most part, they do represent how the sound is actually pronounced. Where they don't, they are allophones.
The pointed brackets <> are for graphemes. Basically, any visual representation of the sound.

Hope this helps.

Oh, and asemic writer is definately off his rocker...but not a troll. Just very, very clueless.

How can he not be a troll? As faiuwle said, the idea that he may be in earnest is a horrifying thought.

Ollock · Post by **Ollock** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:45 am

dhokarena56 wrote:
Mashmakhan wrote:@ blank stare II:

The square brackets [] are for phones or individual sounds. This doesn't need to be IPA. It can also be a form of Sampa.
The slashes // are for phonemes. For the most part, they do represent how the sound is actually pronounced. Where they don't, they are allophones.
The pointed brackets <> are for graphemes. Basically, any visual representation of the sound.

Hope this helps.

Oh, and asemic writer is definately off his rocker...but not a troll. Just very, very clueless.
How can he not be a troll? As faiuwle said, the idea that he may be in earnest is a horrifying thought.

Spoken like someone who has never encountered someone with unusual irrational beliefs before. Guy may be someone very young, or someone with a mental illness.

dhok · Post by **dhok** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:21 pm

But this is so far beyond run-of-the-mill irrationality...I mean, the plumbing and carpentry...the AI...

blank stare II · Post by **blank stare II** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:34 pm

Conworlders don't have to adhere to the laws of rationality, mind you.

cromulant · Post by **cromulant** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:52 pm

dhokarena, I'm going to reply to your post in ten days. blank stare, give me five months.

blank stare II · Post by **blank stare II** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:25 pm

Sounds like quite a challenge to outdo the creator of this thread, cromulant.

Ollock · Post by **Ollock** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:52 pm

OK, on second thought, just a troll. Nothing to see here. Move a long. Lock this, please.

Imralu · Post by **Imralu** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:23 am

I was in a second-hand bookshop and bought a book about the word "that". It's called "That's that" by Dwight Bollinger. It's 79 pages on the use or omission of the English word "that" (as a complementiser and relative pronoun, not as a demonstrative).

Kilanie · Post by **Kilanie** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:47 pm

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.

In other words, English is more fun when you don't have to use "that".

Valkura · Post by **Valkura** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:15 pm

It's pretty funny to see people taking this seriously. And I can't believe that asemic writer is still updating the THAT blog.

zompist bboard

THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT

Re: THAT