Re: USAGE : Yet another proof people are weird ...

Quoting Carlos Thompson <chlewey@...>:

> Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
>
> > Quoting Estel Telcontar <estel_telcontar@...>:
> >
> > > Perhaps it has to do with syllable boundaries? I'm guessing that in
> > > _ignorera_ there is a syllable break between the "g" ([g] or [N]) and
> > > the "n", while _ugn_ is all one syllable.
> >
> > Nice theory, which unfortunately founders on _ugnar_ ['8Nnar] "owens".
>
> Well, not really as _ugnar_ is _ugn_ + _ar_ [8Nn]+[ar], while there is no
> natural way to make _ignorera_ as _ign_+_o..._
>
> You may syllabize _ugnar_ as _ug-nar_ [8N.nar], but the [Nn] are still part
> of one morphem.
Well, you've got a point. But there's no morpheeme break in _ignor-_ either.
Where there, you might expect [gn]; cf _huggna_ "hewn (pl)" [h8gna].

> OTOH, is there a propper way for Swedish writting to force a [g.n]
> pronunciation?  We can well say that the correct pronunciation of _ignorera_
> (_ig-no-re-ra_) is [Ig.nU.re:.ra] and that the [INnUre:ra] pronunciation is
> orthographical pronunciation.
Well, in initial position, |gn| is [gn]. Other than that, there's no proper
way I'm aware of. |-ggn-| is probably risk-free, tho'.

Arguing about correct pronunciation is, of course, risky, but my lexicon gives
two variants; [INnUre:ra] and [InjUre:ra].

                                                       Andreas

Reply