Re: Barbara Bush Re: ASCII convention
- From: "ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx" <ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Oct 2005 20:48:50 -0700
Colin Fine wrote:
> > The poor/pour merger is also pretty common in British English; I
> > pronounce "pour", "poor", "pore" and (being non-rhotic) "paw"
> > identically in normal speech.
>
> I would put it more strongly: <poor> and <pour> are homophones in
> British English.
I have [pw@]; how would that sound to Brits?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Barbara Bush Re: ASCII convention
- From: Colin Fine
- Re: Barbara Bush Re: ASCII convention
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Barbara Bush Re: ASCII convention
- References:
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Ruud Harmsen
- Barbara Bush Re: ASCII convention
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Barbara Bush Re: ASCII convention
- From: Christian Weisgerber
- Re: Barbara Bush Re: ASCII convention
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Barbara Bush Re: ASCII convention
- From: andrew_woode
- Re: Barbara Bush Re: ASCII convention
- From: Colin Fine
- Re: ASCII convention
- Prev by Date: Re: Auld Scots Tongue and Esperanto
- Next by Date: Re: Barbara Bush Re: ASCII convention
- Previous by thread: Re: Barbara Bush Re: ASCII convention
- Next by thread: Re: Barbara Bush Re: ASCII convention
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|