madNbad wrote:
The “i “ disappears with the Philadelphia accent. “Yo! Adriane!”
Going off into the weeds:
Pierogi:
The "i" spelling is a Polish variant of the word, using "ie" instead of "y" in the first syllable. The Americanized accent also places the accentuation on the second syllable where the "RO" sound is prominent and assures that there's a "gee" sounded in the third syllable: purr-RO gee.
Pyrohy:
Other Slavic languages may spell it "pyrohy" (PIER-o hee), where the accent is strongly on the first syllable and there is no "i" sound and no "g" sound.
I can see why Huss was confused . I learned it the second way and always thought that everyone else was talking about something else when they said it the Philly way, which changes the sound of the vowels and in the first syllable and the consonants in the third syllable, and moves the accentuation from the first syllable to the second. It's a typical Americanization of a foreign word, where we make it easier to pronounce in our language.
Pierogi:
The "i" spelling is a Polish variant of the word, using "ie" instead of "y" in the first syllable. The Americanized accent also places the accentuation on the second syllable where the "RO" sound is prominent and assures that there's a "gee" sounded in the third syllable: purr-RO gee.
Pyrohy:
Other Slavic languages may spell it "pyrohy" (PIER-o hee), where the accent is strongly on the first syllable and there is no "i" sound and no "g" sound.
I can see why Huss was confused . I learned it the second way and always thought that everyone else was talking about something else when they said it the Philly way, which changes the sound of the vowels and in the first syllable and the consonants in the third syllable, and moves the accentuation from the first syllable to the second. It's a typical Americanization of a foreign word, where we make it easier to pronounce in our language. ...Show more →
Is it ok to drink a Peroni while eating a Pierogi?
_jim_ wrote:
Peroni: bad. Pierogi: good. Panache: not as tasty as ganache.
Wassa matta wid u? U don-ta like Italian Budweiser?
(I feel the same way about Stella Artois. A country notorious for incredible beers makes that? While I'm at it, throw in Heineken - yeah not Belgium but still sux)
madNbad wrote:
Did you fix the light leak? These look great!
The light leak is still work in progress. It is in a very hard-to-get-to location, and only certain camera orientations will ruin the negative. I just got lucky with these ones.
Who out there likes the Voigtlander 40mm f/2? 35mm is my favorite focal length. I'd always dreamed that Nikon or Zeiss would make a slightly more modern 35mm f/1.4 and not make it a ridiculous size...N never made one and Z made it gargantuan...
The 40/2 is as close as we'll likely get (unless one of the Chinese companies does something interesting). It's a really nice lens - sharp enough, smooth enough draw (without being boring), nice colors, pretty flares. Makes me wish they'd try for a slightly more modern 50 (rather than their 58/55 that don't seem to offer too much advantage on a film camera over Nikon's similar offerings).
Avery by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Nikon F2, Voigtlander 40mm f/2 Ultron, Eastman-5222, Xtol 1:1.
Dad by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Nikon F3, Voigtlander 40mm f/2 Ultron, Kodak Tri-x, Rodinal 1:50...that was tired...lesson learned - make fresh chemicals.
Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Nikon F6, Voigtlander 40mm f/2 Ultron, Kodak Ektar 100 (ok...Ektar is weird for skin tones)
Desmolicious wrote:
Wassa matta wid u? U don-ta like Italian Budweiser?
(I feel the same way about Stella Artois. A country notorious for incredible beers makes that? While I'm at it, throw in Heineken - yeah not Belgium but still sux)
_jim_ wrote:
Who out there likes the Voigtlander 40mm f/2? 35mm is my favorite focal length. I'd always dreamed that Nikon or Zeiss would make a slightly more modern 35mm f/1.4 and not make it a ridiculous size...N never made one and Z made it gargantuan...
The 40/2 is as close as we'll likely get (unless one of the Chinese companies does something interesting). It's a really nice lens - sharp enough, smooth enough draw (without being boring), nice colors, pretty flares. Makes me wish they'd try for a slightly more modern 50 (rather than their 58/55 that don't seem to offer too much advantage on a film camera over Nikon's similar offerings).