Re: RV: Old English

At 02:33 PM 3/29/2000 -0500, Padraic wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, BP Jonsson wrote:
>
> >At 17:15 28.3.2000 -0800, Sally Caves wrote:
> >
> >>1.  sh: shy
> >>2.  c: precious, crucial, ocean
> >>3.  ti:  motion
> >>4.  sci:  luscious
> >>5.  sch:  schedule (Brit.)
> >>6.  ss:  session, mission
> >>7.  ch:  charade, cache (borrowed from French; are there any native
> >>examples?)
> >>8.  s:  sure, sugar
> >
> >I must say that (2) and (6) surprise me somewhat; isn't it _ci_ and _ssi_
> >which map to /S/, much as _ti_ in (3)?
> >(or rather: _ci | ti | ssi_ -> S /_V)
> >
>
>Yes. That would be consistent with ti. Also, it probably should
>be si as in scansion, rather than ssi (isn't it Latin -dt- to -ss-
>or similar: sedeo, sedere, sedui, sessum) the first s being part
>of the root. We can probably add xi, like in connexion (spelled
>connection in the US). But that's really [k.S]: [k'nEk.Sn] We can
>add ci as well, as in Concepcion, a perfectly good Hispanic name,
>but Manglified as [kn'sEp.Sn], just like its English counterpart.
You've heard someone pronounce Concepcion like that? I wouldn't think it'd
be a common enough word in English to justify including it.

>Also add sj, as in sjambok (a kind of whip) and sk, as in Skien, a
>Norwegian city.
If sjambok is an English word, I would say yes, but not Skien, being a
foreign place name. If we included foreign place names we could include <x>
(Portuguese) and most if not all of the Swedish examples already listed, as
well as others.

Also, there's <licorice> /lIk@rIS/.