Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>
Date:Sunday, July 20, 2003, 17:49
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

Carlos Thompson <chlewey@...>