There is no single "British" sound and any individual "British" sound is
not original--certainly not whatever you learned in school. So you must
mean BBC English or the standard taught in English schools? You won't
find it in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, or even much of England.
Try Yorkshire, for example. So there is no reason you should read with
an American accent unless you are reading an American text and want to
I am responding here also to your post about Carrol. By the standard of
linguists, I am an amateur about history of the language. But I did
study it for two years as a doctoral student and studied under Sherman
Kuhn. I write on Scottish literature, and that means constantly using
what I do know about what is presumed to be "British" English. Does the
fact that I do know quite a lot about it mean that my nose is up in the
air if I speak about what have studied and work on? Because, you see,
Carrol is not an amateur.
There can be no doubt that you know immense amounts on topics of which I
am ignorant. It would not occur to me to be offended if you wrote on
them from a position of knowledge.
>>> [log in to unmask] 04/03/06 8:40 AM >>>
A question worth pondering would be to ask if Blake
had used such different spellings in other places.
Just as the word 'Vrka' has sense associations related
to its sound, Blake might have thought the word
'Tyger' brought in similar sound associations the
standard 'Tiger' wasn't adequate for.
I had difficulty in switching over my accent to
standard American for a long time after I moved to the
US. I still feel affected when I have to use words as
can't, aunt. (i can't see them as a different
dialect). For, I am used to their original sounds (I
mean, the way the British say them), and particularly
when I read *English* poetry I find myself a little
uncomfortable when I read it aloud with the American
--- Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> As in tire and tyre?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vishvesh Obla" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 6:02 AM
> Subject: Re: 'Tyger' and 'Vrka' (Was: 'Mind forged
> menacles' and spelling )
> > Peter,
> > I would say Tiger and Tyger sounded differently at
> > least for Blake.
> > --- Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
> > > So where does fixed spelling come into it, as
> > > opposed to fixed sound?
> > >
> > > P.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Vishvesh Obla" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 6:30 AM
> > > Subject: 'Tyger' and 'Vrka' (Was: 'Mind forged
> > > menacles' and spelling )
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is more: (it could be very interesting to
> > > associate Blake's 'Tyger' with the sanskrit
> > >
> > > 'For the reason why sound came to express fixed
> > > ideas,
> > > lies not in any natural and inherent equivalence
> > > between the sound and its intellectual sense,
> > > there is none, -intellectually any sound might
> > > express
> > > any sense, if men were agreed on a conventional
> > > equivalence between them; it started from an
> > > indefinable quality or property in the sound to
> > > raise
> > > certain vibrations in the life-soul of the
> > > human-creature, in his sensational, his
> > > his
> > > crude mental being. An example may indicate more
> > > clearly what I mean. The word wolf, the origin
> > > which is no longer present to our minds, denotes
> > > our intelligence a certain living object and
> that is
> > > all, the rest we have to do for ourselves: the
> > > Sanskrit word vrka, "tearer", came in the end to
> > > the same thing, but originally it expressed the
> > > sensational relation between the wolf and man
> > > most affected the man's life, and it did so by a
> > > certain quality in the sound which readily
> > > associated
> > > it with the sensation of tearing. This must
> > > havegiven
> > > early language a powerful life, a concrete
> > > in
> > > have given one direction a natural poetic force
> > > which
> > > it has lost, however greatly it has gained in
> > > precision, clarity, utility.'
> > >
> > >
> > > )
> > >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.3/296 -
> Release Date: 3/29/2006
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around