On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:05:46 -0400, MorphemeAddict wrote: >Doug, copying from your site, > >df/dt = (∂f/∂x)(dx/dt) + (∂f/∂y)(dy/dt) + (∂f/∂z)(dz/dt) > >that is relatively sort on paper is actually a mouthful when spoken. You >might also recall your professor speaking it as follows, nearly turning blue >at the end: > >dee-f dee-t *equals* the partial of f with respect to x, times dee-x dee-t * >plus* the partial of f with respect to y, times dee-y dee-t *plus* the >partial of f with respect to z, times dee-z dee-t I've been taught to pronounce ∂ as /do:/, which does help quite a bit. No idea how widely that is in use (or if that would be /du:/ or /doʊ/ in English). I also find that distinguishing "dx dt" from "dx/dt" (or anything of the sort) works largely by prosody rather than actually including "per" in the latter. There's an upstep between each top-level multiplicand, I think. Another, fairly transparent possible minor timesaver is to omit the /ɛ/ or /i:/ from variables, if possible ("deef" rather than "dee f", etc.), but it's not common IME. Clearly there's room for further concision however. John Vertical