Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Regularized English (was: RE: CONLANG Digest - 10 May 2000 (still mainly English)

From:Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>
Date:Wednesday, July 12, 2000, 5:57
At 9:37 pm +0100 10/7/00, And Rosta wrote:
>John Cowan, 12 May 2000 14:31: > >Is Reg.Ing. on the web? > >> Reg.Ing. simply drops these silent "s" letters, as in aile, apropo, >> chassi, debri, demene, ile, ilet, iland, lile, vicount. > >Can "aisle" be "aile"? > >> Reg.Ing. changes laughter to lafter, or laafter in Brit.Reg.Ing. > >The lass/glass contrast occurs only in SE England, & those places to >which English was exported in the nineteenth century. I don't think it >should be called "Brit.Reg.Ing.", and I'm not persuaded that a true >Brit RegIng should have "laafter". I suppose the best thing would >be to leave the choice of laafter/lafter up to the writer, and not >to have any Brit.Reg.Ing.
As a fellow Brit - and one who hails from the S.E. - I agree entirely with And. My own experience has been that [A:] has been giving ground over the last 50 years or so. When I was young, I heard around me /I'lA:stIk/ and /'plA:stic/, now 'elastic' and 'plastic' are IME generally pronounced /I'l&stIk/ and /'pl&stIk/ even in the S.E. My wife still says /'drA:stiK/ which my kids find funny - I habitually pronounce it /'dr&stIk/. I agree 100% with And: "the best thing would be to leave the choice of laafter/lafter up to the writer, and not to have any Brit.Reg.Ing." Ray. ========================================= A mind which thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language. [J.G. Hamann 1760] =========================================