Re: Spelling pronunciations (was: rhotic miscellany)
|From:||John Cowan <jcowan@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, November 7, 2004, 5:58|
Ray Brown scripsit:
> >I believe all Americans say this (rhotically or not, as the case may be).
> It wasn't the first syllable I was commenting on. I imagine all dialects
> (and ideolects) of English pronounce the syllable with or withour
> 'rhoticity' according its normal practice. It's the second syllable I was
> commenting on. When I was a youngster AFAIK practically everyone pronounce
> it [@s], as they did also with 'porpoise'. But now I too often hear both
> these words pronounced as tho they rhymed with 'toys' - ach!!
I've also heard a Frenchified [-wAz] in British English. But my point
was that in North America the traditional [-@s] pronuncation prevails.
> >Huh. I'm surprised. The object itself is rather archaic to me,
> Not the side of the Pond, it ain't. They are still often worn - especially
> if colorful :)
Hmm, there seems to be a semantic issue here. MWC10 (www.m-w.com),
which is an American dictionary, defines "waistcoat" as "1. An ornamental
garment worn under a doublet. 2. *chiefly British* A vest." Vests are
certainly not obsolete.
> >I learned the pronunciation "weskit" (from a dictionary, probably) and
> >didn't know it had changed back.
> Alas, it had well before the 1940s.
MWC10 lists two pronunciations: weskit and waist-coat, in that order,
but it doesn't explain what it means for a pronunciation to appear
first (historically earlier? prescriptively preferred? more commonly used?).
"May the hair on your toes never fall out!" John Cowan
--Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo) firstname.lastname@example.org