Re: tlhn'ks't, ngghlyam'ft, and other scary words

On Thursday 06 February 2003 12:17 pm, John Cowan wrote:
> Tristan scripsit:
> > Are you sure about 'burro'? How is final-o-representing-/@/ any more
> > regular than final-ough-representing-/@/? I would've expected 'burra',
> > or 'burrough' at the very worst.
>
> It's a rule in RI that "gh" after vowels does not change the sound,
> so "ough" in RI has the same sound as "ou"/"ow", as in about, how.
> The reason for choosing -o in borough, thorough, etc. is that the
> American pronunciation in these words is the long sound of "o",
> so it's diaphonetic to use -o.
If that's the case, wouldn't the simplest way to reform 'burough' be 'burogh',
leaving the 'gh' in there.

On another note, sorry, my brain made me think you were talking about another
word, and I actually agree with Tristan and on a third note, American
Pronounciation?  Isn't this dialectally biased?