Re: Pre-Kindergarten diphthong analysis

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:
> Perhaps a better response for that situation might have been,
> "Spelling is based on a standard pronunciation;
I wouldn't go so far as to say "standard".  Especially since, across
the language, the spelling is not consistently based on any one
pronunciation, certainly not any modern widespread one.  In fact, I
think the dialects which merge pairs like "horse" and "horse" and
"father" and "bother" are much closer to "standard" status due to
their sheer ubiquity.  (Thanks, Hollywood!)

Probably better to just say that the spelling used to match the
pronunciation in the part of the world where the spelling was decided,
and leave it at that, rather than use value-laden terms like
"standard".

> There's also the (perhaps only stereotypical modernly) /hOs/ for the
> former in Southwestern (or Old Western?) USAian
As in "Hoss" Cartwright.  But I wouldn't necessarily assume that
"hoarse" was pronounced any differently in such lects.

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

Reply