Re: The one already done

Tristan wrote:
> While everyone's talking about spelling reform:
>
> Do americans spell aero- as ero-? (For example, do they spell
> 'aerodrome' as "erodrome" (I know they spell 'aeroplane' as "airplane",
> and pronounce it to match, and that's the only diff i remember seeing).
I would think <airplane> and <aeroplane> would be separate words, not just a
word with varying pronunciation and spelling.

> If not, why not? They spell 'mediaeval' as "medieval" (pointless, IMHO,
> because it no longer suggests two vowels), aesthetic as esthetic, why
> have I never seen aero- as ero-?
I don't understand what you're calling pointless, or why it is. But I have
seen <medi[a]eval> both ways in the US. It seems like one of the words
that's common both ways.

> Muke wrote:
> Anyway, why should 'medieval' suggest two vowels?  I always hear it
> pronounced as if it were "mid-evil" (and, frighteningly, have even seen it
> spelled that way).
I try to pronounce it as /mIdi"iv@l/, or /midi"iv@l/ if I'm trying to be
ultra-correct (spelling pronunciation), or /mI"div@l/ if I'm just plain
lazy. I usually here it the latter way, sometimes the first way.

Jesse S. Bangs sikayal:
> The Gray Wizard sikayal:
>
> > > As for
> > > "aesthetic", I've never seen it "esthetic", but I have seen it
> "asthetic",
> > > and heard it pronounced that way too.
> >
> > "asthetic"? Really?  I suppose I have heard it pronounced as though it
> were
> > so spelled, I can't recall ever seeing it intentionally written that way.
>
> Hmm.  How are you all pronouncing that word?  I always pronounce it as
> [&s'TEdIk], with the first vowel as clearly [&] and not [E].  But since
> the first vowel is unstressed it may be somewhat reduced sort of ambiguous
> between [&] and [E] phonemically, so I'm not surprised that people vary.
> Anyway, I've seen all three spellings: aesthetic, esthetic, asthetic.
> Only the first is correct.
I say /Es"TEtIk/. And I believe both the <ae> and <e> spellings are accepted
in the US, although <ae> seems more common.

John Cowan yscrifef:
> tristan alexander mcleay scripsit:
>
> > Also, does anyone know Webster's logic behind respelling 'colour' as
> > "color", but not 'source' as "sorce", which, being a stressed vowel,
> > would need it more, IMHO.
>
> Webster was basically merging the suffixes "-our" and "-or", which have
> for many centuries been pronounced the same.  As a consequence,
> he cleaned up the derivatives:  why "honour" and "honourable"
> but "honorific"?
So there were already some -or words in English? How about some examples?

> (There is a theory that "-or" is used only for Latin derivatives,
> and "-our" for words that came in through French, but this has
> been shown to be false.)
I usually get irritated at agent nouns ending in <-or> which do NOT come from
a very similar-looking Latin word (or at least a word which would be
possible in Latin). For example, <dictator> is fine, since *<dictator/-oris>
is conceivable in Latin (maybe attested), but words like <payor> (a party
who pays, found e.g. in contracts) really bug me. The other day I even saw
the word <mortgagor>! I'm not sure if the second <g> is soft or not.

--
Eric Christopherson, a.k.a. Contrarian Conlanger Rakko ^_^

Reply