=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 7, no. 5 (14 January 2002) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2ra] Stress patterns on names =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2]-- Q & A -------------------------------------------------- ** [2ra] Stress patterns on names Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 From: Christine Shuttleworth, cshuttle@dircon.co.uk What I don't understand is why Americans refer to 'MICKey Mouse' and 'ROBin Hood' with the stress on the forename, but they don't do this with names of real (i.e. not fictional or legendary) people. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 11 Dec 2001 From: Judy Stein, jstein@panix.com I've never heard Americans say "MICKey Mouse" when they were referring to the Disney character; they put the stress on Mouse, as if it were a last name. You may be thinking of our use of the name as a slang pejorative--"What a mickey-mouse operation that is!"--meaning poorly and/or cheaply run or put together, something that's not really a serious effort. And in that case--for what reason I know not--we stress the first name. As to Robin Hood, we do indeed stress the first name, but I don't think we think of this as a first name and a last name. It would sound odd, for example, to refer to the character as "Mr. Hood." And when "Robin" is used by itself (by one of the other characters in th story), it sounds more like a nickname, incomplete somehow. "Robin Hood" is more like "Superman," as if it were all one word, or as if "Robin" were an adjective modifying "Hood" (Which Hood? ROBIN Hood) rather than the other way around, as with a first and last name in most contexts (Which Robin? Robin HOOD). Usually we pronounce the names of fictional or legendary characters the way we do those of real people. Robin Hood is an exception, for whatever reason. I just thought of another exception--Tinker Bell in "Peter Pan." (But while we say TINKER Bell, we say Peter PAN.) ----------------------- Date: Tues, 11 Dec 2001 From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au You make some good points here; all but one is also applicable to British (and Australian) English. The exception: > Usually we pronounce the names of fictional or legendary > characters the way we do those of real people. Robin Hood is an > exception, for whatever reason. Not for us he isn't. He's Robin HOOD. But, interestingly, I think Tinker Bell is "TINkerbell" on both sides of the pond... In fact, having never read the book , I had assumed it was a one-word name, like Leviathan or Odysseus. (Surely fairies don't have family names? I mean, they don't do any of that messy ... ummm ... _physical_ stuff, do they?) ----------------------- Date: Tues, 11 Dec 2001 From: David Ibbetson, isserlis@rogers.com In folk tales (not modern fairy tales) fairies do that messy physical stuff. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 11 Dec 2001 From: Judy Stein, jstein@panix.com Michael Lewis wrote: > You make some good points here; all but one is also applicable > to British (and Australian) English. The exception: > > > Usually we pronounce the names of fictional or legendary > > characters the way we do those of real people. Robin Hood is > > an exception, for whatever reason. > > Not for us he isn't. He's Robin HOOD. Right, that's what I was addressing, the difference between the American and British pronunciation or stress. My conjecture is that you think of it as a first and last name (i.e., Robin is one of Mr. Hood's sons), whereas we think of it as all one name. > But, interestingly, I think Tinker Bell is "TINkerbell" on both > sides of the pond... In fact, having never read the book > , I had assumed it was a one-word name, like Leviathan > or Odysseus. You know, I've never read the book either. I did have a moment's doubt when I wrote that--I think at some point in the past I was surprised to discover that it was two words when I'd assumed it was one, but it's entirely possible that I was surprised to discover the reverse, and I'm remembering my surprise per se rather than the specifics thereof. > (Surely fairies don't have family names? I mean, they don't do > any of that messy ... ummm ... _physical_ stuff, do they?) Well, I doubt anyone envisions Tinker as being the daughter of a Mr. Bell! But that highlights the difference I'm trying to get at--I think Americans put Robin Hood in the same mythic category as Tinker Bell, in which personages have fanciful names that are descriptive of the individual rather than indicating lineage. (Robin is always portrayed wearing a hooded jerkin--and the phrase "Robin o' the hood" rings a faint bell in my mind.) Perhaps the fact that Robin Hood is himself English makes him seem more real to you, a quasi-historical figure, but more mythic to us. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 11 Dec 2001 From: Michael Fitch, michaelbfitch@supanet.com > Right, that's what I was addressing, the difference between the > American and British pronunciation or stress. My conjecture is > that you think of it as a first and last name (i.e., Robin is > one of Mr. Hood's sons), whereas we think of it as all one > name. You may say 'ROBin Hood', but I'd say we in Britain have an equal stress thro'out: 'Robin Hood', not 'Robin HOOD'. As for his mythic status; if he was real maybe he was alive just about the time surnames were being adopted - so perhaps his son was Mr Hood? I too thought 'Tinker Bell' was one word. This reminds me of someone who always called me 'Mikefitch' (one word) - but he is half-Dutch. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 11 Dec 2001 From: Judy Stein, jstein@panix.com I didn't mean to suggest English people thought of Robin Hood as one of Mr. Hood's sons; I was trying to illustrate how I suspect they more or less unconsciously "parse" the name in terms of where to put the stress--*as if* it were a first name and last name. But obviously I didn't do it very clearly! ----------------------- Date: Tues, 11 Dec 2001 From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au Sorry to argue, but in Britain we do not have equal stress throughout. Stress comes in several flavours at different strengths; if we are just using RH's name (say as the non-emphatic subject of a neutrally-intoned sentence like "Robin Hood might never have existed"), there's a minor stress on Rob, minimal stress on in, and major stress on Hood. However, stress patterns are affected by prosodic issues that sometimes make the differences hard to spot. (I'm reminded of the old story about a westerner asking a Japanese: "Is it 'Hirro-SHEE-ma' or 'Huh-ROSH-um-uh'?". To which the answer is "No." Japanese simply doesn't have syllabic stress; English (any kind) insists on it, so we look for it even where it doesn't exist.) (BTW, despite the Australian affiliation, I'm a Brit.) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 7.5 EDline homepage: < http://www.electriceditors.net/edline/ > ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. ** Articles (c) 2001, 2002, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996--2002 Iain Brown Compilation (c) 2002, Iain Brown / The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=