Is it possible to learn IPA without learning all that bull about labials and plosives?
Blank
No. You need to understand what the symbols mean, and it's really not that difficult. For example, "bilabial" describes sounds that are made by touching your lips together, like [p], [b] and [m]; "labiodental" describes sounds that are made with the upper lip touching the lower teeth, like [f] and [v]; "interdental" descibres sounds that are made by putting the tongue between the teeth, like [θ] and [ð] (the "th" sounds"); "alveolar" describes sounds that are made by touching the tongue against the ridge behind your teeth, like [t], [d] and [n]; and "velar" describes sounds that are made by closing your soft palate, like [k], [g] and [ŋ]. Plosives are sounds that are made by briefly obstructing the airflow, like [p], [t], and [g]; fricatives are sounds that are made by continuously obstructing the airflow, like [f], [v], [s] and [z]; nasals are consonants that are made with air passing through the nasal cavity, like [m], [n] and [ŋ]. "Voiced" describes sounds that are made with vibration of the vocal chords, like [b], [d] and [z]; and "voiceless" describes sounds that are made without vibration of the vocal chords, like [p], [t] and [k].
If you're unwilling to learn IPA, then you can't expect to receive adequate advice on phonetics: it's like learning to speak Greek without learning the Greek alphabet.
If you're unwilling to learn IPA, then you can't expect to receive adequate advice on phonetics: it's like learning to speak Greek without learning the Greek alphabet.
<< I'm not being sarcastic here: I really don't know what you're talking about. How would your pronunciation of "blank" be different if you were concentrating or if you were not concentrating? As I said above, blank is pronounced [ˈblæŋk], with a velar nasal followed by a voiceless velar plosive. >>
It's a long time since I learnt about velar plosives, so I'll try to use simple English. It may be different though, because I'm British.
Although the correct pronounciation of 'blank' is exactly how it's written (I'm going to try to use the normal alphabet), if you're talking fast, it's easier to pronounce the 'n' as an 'ng' sound, as in 'swing', resulting in the word being pronounced more like 'blangk'. I can see how it's unclear though - when talking of 'the invisible g', it's assumed that the 'g' retains it's original sound, rather than merging with another letter to create a single phoneme.
It's a long time since I learnt about velar plosives, so I'll try to use simple English. It may be different though, because I'm British.
Although the correct pronounciation of 'blank' is exactly how it's written (I'm going to try to use the normal alphabet), if you're talking fast, it's easier to pronounce the 'n' as an 'ng' sound, as in 'swing', resulting in the word being pronounced more like 'blangk'. I can see how it's unclear though - when talking of 'the invisible g', it's assumed that the 'g' retains it's original sound, rather than merging with another letter to create a single phoneme.
Exactly how it's written? The matter is that even if you follow the semblance of any rules that are found in English orthography, such is still quite dialect-specific. I myself say [ˈb̥ɰẽŋk] for "blank", but that is by no means an "exception" or like, but rather consistent with the changes shared by all, well, "-ank" words, such as "sank" [ˈsẽŋk], "tank" [ˈtʰẽŋk], and "clank" [ˈkʰɰẽŋk], in my dialect. And for that matter, a large portion of other North American English dialects have undergone very similar changes in this regard.
And as for insisting upon [n] before [k] for orthographic "nk", that is seriously nuts - really - I have never even heard of an English dialect that does that when there are no intervening morpheme boundaries involved.
And as for insisting upon [n] before [k] for orthographic "nk", that is seriously nuts - really - I have never even heard of an English dialect that does that when there are no intervening morpheme boundaries involved.
<<Although the correct pronounciation of 'blank' is exactly how it's written (I'm going to try to use the normal alphabet), if you're talking fast, it's easier to pronounce the 'n' as an 'ng' sound, as in 'swing', resulting in the word being pronounced more like 'blangk'.>>
As Travis noted, what you're implying here - that the "correct" pronunciation would use an alveolar [n] - is absolutely ridiculous. Using [ŋ] in "blank" isn't characteristic of fast speech, it's the universal way to pronounce it in all dialects and all registers. Just look at the Cambridge dictionary listing: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?dict=CALD&key=7938&ph=on .
<<I can see how it's unclear though - when talking of 'the invisible g', it's assumed that the 'g' retains it's original sound, rather than merging with another letter to create a single phoneme.>>
I'd rather not talk of "invisible g's" at all, because it's a nonsense term.
As Travis noted, what you're implying here - that the "correct" pronunciation would use an alveolar [n] - is absolutely ridiculous. Using [ŋ] in "blank" isn't characteristic of fast speech, it's the universal way to pronounce it in all dialects and all registers. Just look at the Cambridge dictionary listing: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?dict=CALD&key=7938&ph=on .
<<I can see how it's unclear though - when talking of 'the invisible g', it's assumed that the 'g' retains it's original sound, rather than merging with another letter to create a single phoneme.>>
I'd rather not talk of "invisible g's" at all, because it's a nonsense term.
Well, since Caspian is talking about British English, I wouldn't be too surprised to find out he really pronounces "blank" with /nk/. There are just too many features in all those different accents they have over there.
I just learned on the BBC website that they have a kind of assimilation that results in "handbag" becoming "hambag", and "good boy" becoming "goob boy". It seems they have a lot more assimilation, so on second thought I wouldn't really expect /nk/ in "blank". I would expect the opposite feature, more assimilation... For example, does anyone know if they say "increase" with /ŋk/, or "unbelievable" as "umbelievable"? Considering they say "foopball", I would expect so, but if it's so then all the phonetic transcriptions in all dictionaries are wrong. Why?
I just learned on the BBC website that they have a kind of assimilation that results in "handbag" becoming "hambag", and "good boy" becoming "goob boy". It seems they have a lot more assimilation, so on second thought I wouldn't really expect /nk/ in "blank". I would expect the opposite feature, more assimilation... For example, does anyone know if they say "increase" with /ŋk/, or "unbelievable" as "umbelievable"? Considering they say "foopball", I would expect so, but if it's so then all the phonetic transcriptions in all dictionaries are wrong. Why?
<<Well, since Caspian is talking about British English, I wouldn't be too surprised to find out he really pronounces "blank" with /nk/. There are just too many features in all those different accents they have over there.>>
No, British people do not pronounce "blank" with [nk]. I can tell you with confidence that there is no dialect in the English-speaking world where they do that.
<<I just learned on the BBC website that they have a kind of assimilation that results in "handbag" becoming "hambag", and "good boy" becoming "goob boy".>>
That kind of assimilation is common throughout all dialects. There's nothing particularly British about it.
<<For example, does anyone know if they say "increase" with /ŋk/,>>
I think most people would pronounce "increase" with [ŋk], at least for the verb.
<<or "unbelievable" as "umbelievable"?>>
I think a lot of English speakers would do that too, at least in colloquial speech.
<<Considering they say "foopball", I would expect so,>>
Again, I have no reason to think that that's particularly British.
<<but if it's so then all the phonetic transcriptions in all dictionaries are wrong. Why?>>
No worries. It's just that dictionaries give a formal citation form, and sometimes in colloquial speech people may tend to use a more assimilated or elided form.
No, British people do not pronounce "blank" with [nk]. I can tell you with confidence that there is no dialect in the English-speaking world where they do that.
<<I just learned on the BBC website that they have a kind of assimilation that results in "handbag" becoming "hambag", and "good boy" becoming "goob boy".>>
That kind of assimilation is common throughout all dialects. There's nothing particularly British about it.
<<For example, does anyone know if they say "increase" with /ŋk/,>>
I think most people would pronounce "increase" with [ŋk], at least for the verb.
<<or "unbelievable" as "umbelievable"?>>
I think a lot of English speakers would do that too, at least in colloquial speech.
<<Considering they say "foopball", I would expect so,>>
Again, I have no reason to think that that's particularly British.
<<but if it's so then all the phonetic transcriptions in all dictionaries are wrong. Why?>>
No worries. It's just that dictionaries give a formal citation form, and sometimes in colloquial speech people may tend to use a more assimilated or elided form.
I thought most speakers of American English didn't have that kind of assimilation (except Travis, I know he has it). It has always driven me crazy. I have tried to listen to American speakers, and I think I have never heard anyone say "Jom McCain"... or am I wrong? If such assimilation only happens in informal fast speech, then it's not automatic. In British English I heard it happens in fairly slow speech too, so it seems automatic.
Are you saying that American normally say NBA and the tip of the tongue rises to pronounce the the N, but in colloquial speech they just say MBA and the tongue tip doesn't even move?
I think it is important to point that out. If people say NBA fast and it comes out like it's MBA it's one thing, but real assimilation where NBA becomes MBA in slower speech too and the tongue doesn't even move is another thing.
can go, could be, NBA, good boy...
If you just read the above line without raising the tip of your tongue, you had real assimilation.
Can anyone tell me more about this stuff? I think it's important, but you can't find much accurate information on the net, I'm afraid. Thanks.
Are you saying that American normally say NBA and the tip of the tongue rises to pronounce the the N, but in colloquial speech they just say MBA and the tongue tip doesn't even move?
I think it is important to point that out. If people say NBA fast and it comes out like it's MBA it's one thing, but real assimilation where NBA becomes MBA in slower speech too and the tongue doesn't even move is another thing.
can go, could be, NBA, good boy...
If you just read the above line without raising the tip of your tongue, you had real assimilation.
Can anyone tell me more about this stuff? I think it's important, but you can't find much accurate information on the net, I'm afraid. Thanks.
For example, does anyone know if they say "increase" with /ŋk/, or "unbelievable" as "umbelievable"? >>
Yes, we do. 'ingcrease', 'umbelievable' - it's quite common.
<< If you just read the above line without raising the tip of your tongue, you had real assimilation. >>
Yes, I can do that natrually lol
<< As Travis noted, what you're implying here - that the "correct" pronunciation would use an alveolar [n] - is absolutely ridiculous. Using [ŋ] in "blank" isn't characteristic of fast speech, it's the universal way to pronounce it in all dialects and all registers. >>
The standard way is to use [n]. [ŋ] is OK, but it's not the perfect standard form. I said speaking fast - I didn't really mean that. When talking with friends, colloquially, one tends to speak in a more relaxed fashion, as above - whereas when talking in Standard English, one should take care to pronounce it more carefully, and use [n], not merging sounds.
<< I'd rather not talk of "invisible g's" at all, because it's a nonsense term. >>
It's not nonsense, it's a perfectly simple way of describing it without overcomplicating it. It may not be the standard way - but you like that, don't you? XD
Yes, we do. 'ingcrease', 'umbelievable' - it's quite common.
<< If you just read the above line without raising the tip of your tongue, you had real assimilation. >>
Yes, I can do that natrually lol
<< As Travis noted, what you're implying here - that the "correct" pronunciation would use an alveolar [n] - is absolutely ridiculous. Using [ŋ] in "blank" isn't characteristic of fast speech, it's the universal way to pronounce it in all dialects and all registers. >>
The standard way is to use [n]. [ŋ] is OK, but it's not the perfect standard form. I said speaking fast - I didn't really mean that. When talking with friends, colloquially, one tends to speak in a more relaxed fashion, as above - whereas when talking in Standard English, one should take care to pronounce it more carefully, and use [n], not merging sounds.
<< I'd rather not talk of "invisible g's" at all, because it's a nonsense term. >>
It's not nonsense, it's a perfectly simple way of describing it without overcomplicating it. It may not be the standard way - but you like that, don't you? XD
<<The standard way is to use [n].>>
No, it is not. That is absolutely false. The cases of formal [n] and informal [ŋ] that you're talking about occur in words like "increase" or "incredible", where the [k] is in a following syllable. In words like "blank", there is absolutely no possibility of using [n] - it is completely disallowed by English phonology. Again, look at the Cambridge Dictionary, or indeed any pronouncing dictionary from the UK or the US: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?dict=CALD&key=7938&ph=on . They show "blank" with [ŋ]. (I can't believe I'm actually debating this point!)
<<When talking with friends, colloquially, one tends to speak in a more relaxed fashion, as above - whereas when talking in Standard English, one should take care to pronounce it more carefully, and use [n], not merging sounds.>>
Caspian, you are frighteningly misinformed and you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. You would do everyone a favor if you never again tried to expound on what Standard English was.
No, it is not. That is absolutely false. The cases of formal [n] and informal [ŋ] that you're talking about occur in words like "increase" or "incredible", where the [k] is in a following syllable. In words like "blank", there is absolutely no possibility of using [n] - it is completely disallowed by English phonology. Again, look at the Cambridge Dictionary, or indeed any pronouncing dictionary from the UK or the US: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?dict=CALD&key=7938&ph=on . They show "blank" with [ŋ]. (I can't believe I'm actually debating this point!)
<<When talking with friends, colloquially, one tends to speak in a more relaxed fashion, as above - whereas when talking in Standard English, one should take care to pronounce it more carefully, and use [n], not merging sounds.>>
Caspian, you are frighteningly misinformed and you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. You would do everyone a favor if you never again tried to expound on what Standard English was.
<< In words like "blank", there is absolutely no possibility of using [n] - it is completely disallowed by English phonology. >>
I have no doubt that this is so where you from; America. However, I assure you that in Britain, where I come from, it is perfectly possible, and indeed correct, for one to say blank using the [n] sound. I'm not disputing the fact that it's more common - and yes, more comfortable to use [ŋ], however [n] is more standard.
<< Caspian, you are frighteningly misinformed and you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. You would do everyone a favor if you never again tried to expound on what Standard English was. >>
Oh, how lovely it must be to be so absolutely sure that you're always right! There comes a point where one stops exchanging viewpoints / ideas and begins petty insults, and it appears that you have crossed that line. I'm a native speaker of British English, as you are a native speaker of American English (hence 'favor'!); this means that I have the advantage of knowing instinctively what is right and wrong in English - I am living, which is more than any dictionary. It is this that not only enables me to be able to tell that [n] is correct, but also that your "if you never again tried to expound on what Standard English was." is utterly wrong.
You've put it in the past tense - I wasn't referring to what Standard English was, I'm referring to how it is now. I think what you meant was 'if you never again tried to expound on what Standard English is' or even 'if you were never again to try to expound on what Standard English were.' although I have a sneaky suspicion that you will be strongly against this last example.
I have no doubt that this is so where you from; America. However, I assure you that in Britain, where I come from, it is perfectly possible, and indeed correct, for one to say blank using the [n] sound. I'm not disputing the fact that it's more common - and yes, more comfortable to use [ŋ], however [n] is more standard.
<< Caspian, you are frighteningly misinformed and you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. You would do everyone a favor if you never again tried to expound on what Standard English was. >>
Oh, how lovely it must be to be so absolutely sure that you're always right! There comes a point where one stops exchanging viewpoints / ideas and begins petty insults, and it appears that you have crossed that line. I'm a native speaker of British English, as you are a native speaker of American English (hence 'favor'!); this means that I have the advantage of knowing instinctively what is right and wrong in English - I am living, which is more than any dictionary. It is this that not only enables me to be able to tell that [n] is correct, but also that your "if you never again tried to expound on what Standard English was." is utterly wrong.
You've put it in the past tense - I wasn't referring to what Standard English was, I'm referring to how it is now. I think what you meant was 'if you never again tried to expound on what Standard English is' or even 'if you were never again to try to expound on what Standard English were.' although I have a sneaky suspicion that you will be strongly against this last example.
<<I have no doubt that this is so where you from; America. However, I assure you that in Britain, where I come from, it is perfectly possible, and indeed correct, for one to say blank using the [n] sound. I'm not disputing the fact that it's more common - and yes, more comfortable to use [ŋ], however [n] is more standard. >>
No it's not, Caspian. Did you look at the dictionary entry that I linked to?
<<Oh, how lovely it must be to be so absolutely sure that you're always right!>>
I also proved you wrong here ( http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t12375-30.htm ), on your crazy claim that the phoneme /W/ is commonly used in RP - when in reality, it's a form so archaic, and so nearly extinct in England, that even the Queen failed to use it in 1952.
<<There comes a point where one stops exchanging viewpoints / ideas and begins petty insults, and it appears that you have crossed that line.>>
I apologize; you have simply exceeded my tolerance level for mind-numbingly misinformed bullshit. Your ignorance of English phonology is astonishing, and it doesn't matter what country you come from.
<<I'm a native speaker of British English, as you are a native speaker of American English (hence 'favor'!); this means that I have the advantage of knowing instinctively what is right and wrong in English - I am living, which is more than any dictionary.>>
I've encountered many Americans who are quite ignorant about American English phonology as well.
<<It is this that not only enables me to be able to tell that [n] is correct,>>
Find me one source, anywhere, that attests that. One recording on Youtube of any English person using [n] in "blank".
<<You've put it in the past tense - I wasn't referring to what Standard English was, I'm referring to how it is now.>>
I put it in the past indicative because the preceding clause was in the past subjunctive. I acknowledge that you're referring to how it is now; it's simply a matter of tense agreement.
<<I think what you meant was 'if you never again tried to expound on what Standard English is'>>
That would be fine as well.
<<or even 'if you were never again to try to expound on what Standard English were.'>>
Wrong. You've now managed to formulate something that wouldn't be standard in any dialect. The past subjunctive can be followed by the past indicative or by the present indicative, but it cannot be followed by the present subjunctive.
<<although I have a sneaky suspicion that you will be strongly against this last example.>>
For once you're right on something!
No it's not, Caspian. Did you look at the dictionary entry that I linked to?
<<Oh, how lovely it must be to be so absolutely sure that you're always right!>>
I also proved you wrong here ( http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t12375-30.htm ), on your crazy claim that the phoneme /W/ is commonly used in RP - when in reality, it's a form so archaic, and so nearly extinct in England, that even the Queen failed to use it in 1952.
<<There comes a point where one stops exchanging viewpoints / ideas and begins petty insults, and it appears that you have crossed that line.>>
I apologize; you have simply exceeded my tolerance level for mind-numbingly misinformed bullshit. Your ignorance of English phonology is astonishing, and it doesn't matter what country you come from.
<<I'm a native speaker of British English, as you are a native speaker of American English (hence 'favor'!); this means that I have the advantage of knowing instinctively what is right and wrong in English - I am living, which is more than any dictionary.>>
I've encountered many Americans who are quite ignorant about American English phonology as well.
<<It is this that not only enables me to be able to tell that [n] is correct,>>
Find me one source, anywhere, that attests that. One recording on Youtube of any English person using [n] in "blank".
<<You've put it in the past tense - I wasn't referring to what Standard English was, I'm referring to how it is now.>>
I put it in the past indicative because the preceding clause was in the past subjunctive. I acknowledge that you're referring to how it is now; it's simply a matter of tense agreement.
<<I think what you meant was 'if you never again tried to expound on what Standard English is'>>
That would be fine as well.
<<or even 'if you were never again to try to expound on what Standard English were.'>>
Wrong. You've now managed to formulate something that wouldn't be standard in any dialect. The past subjunctive can be followed by the past indicative or by the present indicative, but it cannot be followed by the present subjunctive.
<<although I have a sneaky suspicion that you will be strongly against this last example.>>
For once you're right on something!
<< No it's not, Caspian. Did you look at the dictionary entry that I linked to? >>
Yes, that's why I remarked on dictionaries.
<< I also proved you wrong here ( http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t12375-30.htm ), on your crazy claim that the phoneme /W/ is commonly used in RP - when in reality, it's a form so archaic, and so nearly extinct in England, that even the Queen failed to use it in 1952. >>
You're bringing back the dead. And you didn't prove me wrong - /w/ is used in RP, however 'archaic' it may be in America. Anyway, let's not bring out old arguments.
<< I apologize; you have simply exceeded my tolerance level for mind-numbingly misinformed bullshit. Your ignorance of English phonology is astonishing, and it doesn't matter what country you come from. >>
Oh my God, isn't it a small world - I've found a picture of you! http://imgfly.com/photo/24639/
<< I've encountered many Americans who are quite ignorant about American English phonology as well. >>
Every time you look in the mirror then, I guess.
<< I put it in the past indicative because the preceding clause was in the past subjunctive. I acknowledge that you're referring to how it is now; it's simply a matter of tense agreement. >>
Yes; yours don't agree.
<< That would be fine as well. >>
Of course it would; I'm a native speaker.
<< Wrong. You've now managed to formulate something that wouldn't be standard in any dialect. The past subjunctive can be followed by the past indicative or by the present indicative, but it cannot be followed by the present subjunctive. >>
I admit that's wrong. I intended to write ''if you were never again to try to expound on what Standard English is.''
<< For once you're right on something! >>
Ah, the ingenious of wit! I've literally fallen off my chair laughing. (breathes for air) - you've split my sides, I'll sue you for the damage! Ah, I'll tell everyone this at parties!! Please, tell me, are you a comedian?!
Yes, that's why I remarked on dictionaries.
<< I also proved you wrong here ( http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t12375-30.htm ), on your crazy claim that the phoneme /W/ is commonly used in RP - when in reality, it's a form so archaic, and so nearly extinct in England, that even the Queen failed to use it in 1952. >>
You're bringing back the dead. And you didn't prove me wrong - /w/ is used in RP, however 'archaic' it may be in America. Anyway, let's not bring out old arguments.
<< I apologize; you have simply exceeded my tolerance level for mind-numbingly misinformed bullshit. Your ignorance of English phonology is astonishing, and it doesn't matter what country you come from. >>
Oh my God, isn't it a small world - I've found a picture of you! http://imgfly.com/photo/24639/
<< I've encountered many Americans who are quite ignorant about American English phonology as well. >>
Every time you look in the mirror then, I guess.
<< I put it in the past indicative because the preceding clause was in the past subjunctive. I acknowledge that you're referring to how it is now; it's simply a matter of tense agreement. >>
Yes; yours don't agree.
<< That would be fine as well. >>
Of course it would; I'm a native speaker.
<< Wrong. You've now managed to formulate something that wouldn't be standard in any dialect. The past subjunctive can be followed by the past indicative or by the present indicative, but it cannot be followed by the present subjunctive. >>
I admit that's wrong. I intended to write ''if you were never again to try to expound on what Standard English is.''
<< For once you're right on something! >>
Ah, the ingenious of wit! I've literally fallen off my chair laughing. (breathes for air) - you've split my sides, I'll sue you for the damage! Ah, I'll tell everyone this at parties!! Please, tell me, are you a comedian?!
<<Yes, that's why I remarked on dictionaries.>>
When looking for notions of Standard English that involve greater formality than what's found even in one's own idiolect, dictionaries serve as a credible standard. Dictionaries often fail to list informal or colloquial usages, but I've never known them to be *not formal enough*. You haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support your argument.
Listen to how the Queen says "thank" in this very formal statement ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_moIV4wDQsY ) around 3:05: she uses [ŋ].
<<And you didn't prove me wrong - /w/ is used in RP, however 'archaic' it may be in America.>>
It's *more* archaic in England than in the US, not the other way round; that was my point. /ʍ/ is common in some regions of the US, and it's often listed in American dictionaries.
<<Anyway, let's not bring out old arguments.>>
Because you lost them.
<<Every time you look in the mirror then, I guess.>>
Very funny. But we haven't had any discussion about American English phonology, so how would you know?
<<Yes; yours don't agree.>>
Mine *do* agree. The past indicative agrees with the past subjunctive; they're both in the PAST. The present indicative does not agree with the past subjunctive, but as I acknowledged, it can follow it in contemporary English.
<<I intended to write ''if you were never again to try to expound on what Standard English is.''>>
Oh, okay. That one would be fine as well.
When looking for notions of Standard English that involve greater formality than what's found even in one's own idiolect, dictionaries serve as a credible standard. Dictionaries often fail to list informal or colloquial usages, but I've never known them to be *not formal enough*. You haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support your argument.
Listen to how the Queen says "thank" in this very formal statement ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_moIV4wDQsY ) around 3:05: she uses [ŋ].
<<And you didn't prove me wrong - /w/ is used in RP, however 'archaic' it may be in America.>>
It's *more* archaic in England than in the US, not the other way round; that was my point. /ʍ/ is common in some regions of the US, and it's often listed in American dictionaries.
<<Anyway, let's not bring out old arguments.>>
Because you lost them.
<<Every time you look in the mirror then, I guess.>>
Very funny. But we haven't had any discussion about American English phonology, so how would you know?
<<Yes; yours don't agree.>>
Mine *do* agree. The past indicative agrees with the past subjunctive; they're both in the PAST. The present indicative does not agree with the past subjunctive, but as I acknowledged, it can follow it in contemporary English.
<<I intended to write ''if you were never again to try to expound on what Standard English is.''>>
Oh, okay. That one would be fine as well.
And in the spirit of pictorial representation, I've found a depiction of my own epic crusade against phonological misinformation: http://xkcd.com/386/