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
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."
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
[J.G. Hamann 1760]