CHAT: pathos (was: Re: CHAT:Conscripts)

From: Eugene Oh <un.doing@...>

> 2007/8/6, R A Brown <ray@...>:
> > ...and don't those who have /p&T/ for the singular, have /p&Dz/ for the
> > plural?
> To be prescriptive, shouldn't the "correct" way be the former? After
> all, there's no interposing vowel that got deleted through the ages.
Again, my idio: "booths" could be /buDz/ or /buTs/, depending on if it's a day with
an "r" in it. Alas, I'm my only sample, but it could be an overextension of a
"baths => bathes" sort of thing, which you describe above (though I tend to go
for "Roman baths (/b&Dz/)" over (I kid you not -- I *just* heard this in a TV
ad) "new baths (/b&Ts/)"). Oooor, overextention of "hoof => hooves"; "roof =>
rooves"; "dwarf => dwarves"; "wolf => wolves" (the only "s" example I can think
of is "house (/haUs/) => houses (/haUzIz/? /haUz@z/?). Some of these are not
prescriptively legal, and I constantly find myself running to the dictionary to
check (sans checking, I'm thinking "dwarves" and "rooves" are not in the canon)
(gee, spellcheck confirms it).

> 2007/8/6, Douglas Koller <laokou@...>:
> > /pADz/ reminds me of an episode of "The Avengers" (the Tara years), where
> Steed shouts, "Tap dancing!" /t&p dAnsIN/. /t&p d&nsIN/, okay, or to fulfill the
> British stereotype, /tAp dAnsIN/, but /t&p dAnsiN/ (try typing that three times
> fast)?
> /tAp dAnsIN/?? I'm quite sure no Brit pronounces it [tAp]. In fact,
> /t&p dAnsiN/ is how Brits say it.
As Patrick Macnee deftly illustrates. I did say "stereotype", which need not be based in reality.

Kou