Re: "toro": English vs Spanish [was: Re: The last word on cot/caught]



(I just noticed that this didn't get sent. It has been
waiting patiently in a buffer waiting for a correction in
the Newsgroups line. Better late than never; here it is:)

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:12:44 +0200, THE Entity
<gguiri@xxxxxxxxx> said:

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:09:36 GMT, Bob Cunningham
<exw6sxq@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrought:

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:05:30 +0200, THE Entity
<gguiri@xxxxxxxxx> said:

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:10:39 GMT, Bob Cunningham
<exw6sxq@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrought:

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 19:30:56 +0000 (UTC), Salvatore Volatile
<me@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:

[...]

The FAQ-related materials on ASCII IPA contain materially
misleading information.

[...]

I think that you, Richard, having made your statement,
should quote some specific examples of items you consider
misleading. I suspect that not everyone here will agree
with you. You should also clarify what you mean by
"FAQ-related".

You've made a serious, possibly irresponsible, charge. If
you're not willing to give specific examples, then I would
suggest that everyone should ignore your remark.

Irresponsible?

No, "possibly irresponsible".

True. Apologies for the inaccuracy. It was also reinforced as
tentative because it was addressed to "Richard", I note.
If I understand your codes of escalation, unqualified "irresponsible"
would have gone with "Richard Fontana", while "egregiously
irresponsible"

Or, equivalently, "outrageously irresponsible".

would only be used if things ever got to the bare
"Fontana" stage.

In the Dawghouse with him!

Why "dawg"? For many readers, including me, "dawghouse" and
"doghouse" are no different in pronunciation.

That was my point. Maybe I'm weird, but I find a certain irony in
finding that the poster here who is most interested in pronunciation
and its accurate analysis and annotation is the one who probably has
the fewest vowel sounds in his own speech.

As I've said a few times over the years, from the fact that
I don't use certain sounds in my speech it doesn't follow
that I'm not thoroughly familiar with the sounds. Also as
I've said before, I can pronounce "saw" [sO:] as well as
anyone else, but I wouldn't do it for fear people would
think I was talking funny.

There may be sounds that I'm not able to pronounce with
confidence (for example [A.]) because they don't exist in my
idiolect, but like the judge who commented on pornography, I
recognize them when I hear them. (But I've never heard [A.]
in the speech of an American.)

I'm not criticising it --
hell, my own speech has enough peculiarities of its own; I just find
it rather amusing.

What
readership do you have in mind in using the spelling
"dawghouse"

The AUE readership at large, or at least those who are aware of all
the CIC/CINC discussions over the years.

The key phrase there is "those who are aware of". I try to
think of the innocent newcomer and the occasional reader,
and as a result I consider it bad to use terms that need to
be defined to be understood by all. I wouldn't mind seeing
people use "aw sound" and "ah sound" if they defined them on
the spot in every posting in which they were used, or at
least referred to a readily available glossary that included
them.

If I were to attempt to define "aw sound" and "ah sound", I
would define them as [O] and [A], respectively, and I would
then wonder why people don't want to use the IPA symbols to
begin with. Definitions of IPA symbols *are* readily
available, both as sound files and as articulatory
descriptions.

and what pronunciation is it intended to
represent?

Yours -- it's your dawghouse, so you get to decide how its pronounced.

But wouldn't that be equally true if you had spelled it
"doghouse"? I can also pronounce that any way I want.

I think there's a name for that sort of spelling, like
spelling "was" "wuz" while that's pretty close to the way
most American English speakers pronounce "was". Can anyone
[here] remind me what that [name] is?

Eye dialect?

I don't think that's right, because "eye dialect" is defined
(in the _New Shorter Oxford_) to be

a form of writing in which spellings are altered
in order to represent a dialectal pronunciation;

"Wuz" is not dialectal. It's a pronunciation of "was" used
by many if not most American English speakers. Another
common pronunciation that's not dialectal is [w@z].

The term I was reaching for applies to mistakenly treating a
spelling as if it were eye dialect even though the spelling
represents the most commonly accepted pronunciation of the
word.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading