Re: Powers that be were Re: Newbie says hi
|From:||Jake X <alwaysawake247@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, November 6, 2002, 0:34|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Muke Tever" <mktvr@...>
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: Powers that be were Re: Newbie says hi
> From: "Jake X" <alwaysawake247@...>
> > > On the word 'stoopit', I guess that's an American way of making'stupid'
> > > stupid, because they can't just do 'stoopid' because that's the normal
> > > pronunciation? The word seems to have essentially become 'stoopid'
> > > /stu;p@d/ here all the time, even though 'student' is still/stSu;d@nt/.
> > >
> > My dialect doesn't have /stSu:d@nt/ at all. We say /stu;dent/, thoughin my
> > case I pronounce the /t/ with aspiration, not as sloppily as to have/t/ -->
> > /tS/. This is similar to the way my little brother, when he waslearning to
> > write, misspelled "tree" as "chree": because of the combination ofaspirated
> > t-initial and American semivocalic r, he percieved it with the wrong
> > phonemes. Anyway....
> I wouldn't say it was with the wrong phonemes as that the spelling isoutdated.
> It's certainly /tSri:/ here, with /S/ epenthetic. And I wouldn't blamethe
> aspiration either, because e.g., "dream" is /dZri:m/. [At least in mylect.
> Yours will almost certainly differ, but presumably not your brother's.]
> *Muke! Once again, I have /dri:m/. (No aspiration, because [d] is voiced.) My
brother's not here at the moment to say it for me, but in that case, I think
he would agree with me. Dunno.