posted
One day, a man in a distant town went to the store. He started noticing one by one, people were going insane. He told people they were going insane, and to be warned, but no one headed his words. Soon, all of society was nuts, and the man couldn't stand it any more, so he left society and lived as a hermit in the hills. Years passed until he finally gave up, and went back to the town as an insane man. The town welcomed him back to sanity.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not the same thing as deleting a syllable. That's switching the orders or at least two sounds; it's called metathesis, which is process that explains the mispronunciation of the word nuclear (actually, it's slightly more complicated than that, but not by much).
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, of all the words to slur a bit for ease of pronunciation, wouldn't "comfortable" be the most appropriate?
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in reality, I actually just delete and don't add in the "er" or "al" sounds, so metathesis doesn't apply to me, although it may apply to others.
I've already been stumped and mollified in the other thread, by 'February', which it has been pointed out is mispronounced as 'Febyuary'.
posted
I think the difference here is that educated people say "nuclear" and uneducated people say "nukyular", while there is no such correlation for comfterble/comfortable.
*pronounces February correctly*
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, in reality, I actually just delete and don't add in the "er" or "al" sounds, so metathesis doesn't apply to me, although it may apply to others.
So you pronounce it without an r sound altogether? What are you, a limey?
The "al" is just supposed to represent a schwa followed by an l, just like in the "correct" pronunciation of comfortable. It just looked funny to spell it comfterble. Well, actually, maybe it doesn't. I think I'll change it.
quote:Hmm, of all the words to slur a bit for ease of pronunciation, wouldn't "comfortable" be the most appropriate?
And have you ever noticed how easy it is to slur the word slur? And how hard it is to say the word lisp if you have a lisp?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not minding you. I think it's hilarious, and interesting. And I'm procrastinating on studying, so that's a good thing.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Or..could today's Englsh be so warped that the correct way to say it is lithp and not lisp? Could a lisp then be considered a good thing? Not that it's so bad in the first place, mind you.
Posts: 1401 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And is "a-splode" an acceptable corruption of the word "explode"?
(I tried to find some sort of term for the modification of the vowel but didn't find anything, sadly)
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I expecially axed you not to use expecially! This SuxoRS!!!!!!111111
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Der Grammatikfuehrer
unregistered
posted
Just remember: in another thousand years or so, all of these "incorrect" pronunciations may be correct. Just think of the mispronouncers as language innovators.
IP: Logged |
posted
Iroquois are "irr-o-koy" because of French. Ir should be "irr-o-qua", if I'm not mistaken, as French pronunciation should be adopted. They called them by the phonetic name, and the English colonists took the spelling.
No?
I suggest "kumf't'ble" ("kum" because spelling it with a "c" might seem a bit obscene - but that way we get rid of the "o").
Although, it's a shame to leave Latin... Just like "Videeow".
Lets rait fonetikly. Owkei?
Edit to Add: Where did this "ASPLODE" business come from? Reminds me of LotF: - "My grandmother said I can't swim on account of my asthma!" - "ASS-mar?!?!"
[ April 30, 2005, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Jonathan, want to come over to my house and watch some wee-DAY-ohs?
Of course, it's important to remember that English speakers speak English, not Latin or French. It's a little silly to make English speakers follow the rules of a foreign language when they're speaking their own language.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hey, Jonathan, want to come over to my house and watch some wee-DAY-ohs?
Glad to, but you live far away from me.
And yes, it's stupid to follow the plurals of other linguae and their grammatical rules - but English is a mess of Grammar, as German is a mess of syntax (sentences that are 50 words long).
We have Latin grammar*, German vocabulary, Viking pronouns** and French spelling. It just doesn't fit!
I mean, apostrophes, why not drop them? And why not make punctuation easier as it was in classical Jewish writings***? today we've got a mess of punctuation, and it's not necessary - from experience.
JH
--- * The apostrophe-s, for instance: "servus Caecilium", it means "Caecilius's servant".
** "Them" is Viking. "Hem" is Old English.
*** One dot, ".", is like a comma or a semi-colon; two dots, ":", is like a full stop. Three dots, ":.", is a "paragraph" end and four dots, "::", is the end of a chapter, or major sector of content.
[ April 30, 2005, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the 's possessive marker comes from Old English. There is virtually no real Latin grammar in English beyond a few plural endings like alumnus/alumni.
Our core vocabulary is Germanic (but not German) in origin because English is a Germanic language. But then there's a lot of French and Latin vocabulary added on top of that.
Only the third-person plural pronouns are Norse in origin. All the rest come from good ol' Old English.
English spelling is most certainly not French in origin. English spelling is a mess because it reflects different English dialects and because it was never standardized phonetically like some languages have been. French spelling is a mess because pronunciation has changed so much since it was standardized.
I'm (almost) all for dropping apostrohes, though, except maybe for contractions and a couple other things. Even though plurals and possessives often sound identical, we can rely on context to indicate which it is. The same should apply to writing. But what about plural possessives? Maybe it wouldn't be a problem, but I don't know.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Curse you all for bringing this to my attention. I've now been saying it different ways with the realization that I don't know how I normally pronounce the word!
Why is this such a big deal? I work in customer service at a major bed company. This is the kind of word that I say and hear ALL DAY.
Texans, New Yorkans, Sydneysiders and Glasgewians (sp?) might pronounce the "ay" combination slightly differently (I know the Glasgewians do).
Seying it "d-e-i" won't get you too many problems.
But that's not the answer to your problems.
---
Jon Boy: The 's is the only ending of the Latin type that remains in English. But it's still got those three apostrophe-usage rules (Mark's dog/Mrs Jones's house; my friends' clothes; Jesus' actions).
English spelling is vry much French. And quite a few Latin words came into English through french. "Color" in Latin was "coulour" (now "couleur") in French, and consequently "colour" in English (until Americans came and decided they want to return to Latin origins).
Our spelling is heavily influenced by the dialects, which came from many languages' writing. OSC's son, Geoff, you'd expect to pronounce "Je(e)-off" or something similar; but it's "Jeff". Why the spelling? French. It was Geoffrey Chaucer (and that was how I knew that it's "Jeff", by the way), and I guess that remains of old French spelling still remained in English. And how many ways were thre to spell what's today "Shakespeare"?
One other regarding apostrophes (plural possessives will be an interesting case, but I recommend writing "Jesuss", still): "it's" and "its" are still weird. If "its" is the possessive of "it", we need to have it it's! Of course, I don't rebel my own writing, but it as a weird case... And we need neuter in English. Like the he/she, "he or she", "they" problem, bcause you never call a human "it" (except for very rare cases, one in my class, ).
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The 's is the only ending of the Latin type that remains in English.
I'm assuming you mean "Latin type" to mean "noun declension type." It's not true, though; plural endings are also a form of noun declension.
quote:English spelling is vry much French.
Some things have been influenced by French, but very much has not been. For example, in Old English the letter c was used to represent the sounds k and ch (just like in modern Italian), but the French changed it to fit their system of using the letters ch to represent the ch sound. Same with the th sounds; English used to have separate letters to write those sounds, but French changed it to th.
But for the most part, all of our crazy vowels, including baffling combinations like ough and augh, are distinctly English.
quote:"it's" and "its" are still weird.
Not really. One is a contraction, so it needs an apostrophe, whereas the other is a personal pronoun, and those never take apostrophes.
quote:And we need neuter in English. Like the he/she, "he or she", "they" problem, bcause you never call a human "it" (except for very rare cases, one in my class, ).
The thing is, we do have a gender-neutral pronoun: they. The problem is that English teachers keep insisting that it's wrong.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
