Re: Why my conlangs SUCK!!!

Tristan McLeay wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:12:18PM -0500, Tristan McLeay wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Apropos of this, there is a female American name pronounced [mejg@n] or
>>>thereabouts. Is that simply the American (for particular values of
>>>American, of course) pronunciation of 'Meagan', which I say as /mIig@n/?
>>>
>>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>
>Okay (I'm not sure which of 'Meagan' and 'Megan' is more common here. I
>just spelt it the first way it came to me. It could well be that 'Megan'
>is more common here).
>
>
>Nick Taylor wrote:
>
>
>
>>>(One American spelling that grates is 'Jared' for 'Jarrod', like the
>>>Subway guy. Looks like /dZe:d/ t'me.)
>>>
>>>
>>Ugh, another error on my side.  :-)  Anyhoo, similar question, aremedial
>>-r- usually silent for you?
>>
>>
>
>Well, the the -ed makes it look like a past tense (or similar), so it
>looks like Jare+(e)d. Because the e looks silent, the r is no longer
>medial. Perhaps if there weren't the alternate (and proper :P) spelling
>'Jarrod', 'Jared' would look okay, I couldn't say (e.g. if someone's name
>was 'Lared' ... nah, that too looks (to me at least) like /le:d/, but
>'Larod' is probably /la(:)r(@|O)d/ ... at any rate, it has the r
>pronounced, though it's being read in foreign).
>
>With less rambling, r exists if there's a vowel pronounced after it. If
>there's no vowel pronounced after it, it could be spelt
>'scaraeiouaieeeaieoooaouyd' and it'd still be pronounced /ske:d/.
>
>--
>
>
Australian has /ske:d/  rather than  /skE:d/  or  /skE@d/?

David Barrow

Reply