Re: Sanskrit pronounciation sources


"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154661093.134526.164450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154608766.841608.95020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
"Ekkehard Dengler" <ED-RS@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eaokik$g4e$02$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154468202.487404.116060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

benlizross wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:

benlizross wrote:
Ekkehard Dengler wrote:

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message

news:1154345486.445514.251590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ruud Harmsen wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
I gather there's no intrinsic reason why a w.
entry
couldn't be as
detailed as its many authors choose to make it.

Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:23:03 -0400: Christopher Culver
<crculver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: in sci.lang:
Encyclopedias strive to keep things small and
simple.

Bad new ones do. Better ones, like _old_ copies of
Encyclopedia
Brittanica, provide overview AND details. Wikipedia
does
too.

If you knew how to pronounce "Britannica," you'd have
a
hard
time
misspelling it.

That doesn't seem logical. A double consonant doesn't
necessarily
mean that
the following syllable is unstressed. Take "appear",
(BrE)
"shallot" or
"tinnitus". Or "Brittonic".

Regards,
Ekkehard

...and, for that matter, manic, panic, satanic, where
single-n
follows
the same vowel.

You're both looking at it from the wrong end.

Well excuse _me_! As the only surviving believer in the
Chomsky-Halle
doctrine of the Immaculate Perfection of English Orthography,
you
really
ought to publish a little handbook explaining which end of
words
to
look
at.

The tt-n spelling
suggests the stress /,brit@'niyk@/.

The double consonant strongly suggests that the _preceding_
syllable
is
stressed.

You mean like in immaculate, attenuate, assiduous,
disseminate,
...?
Nope, doesn't suggest it to me. Well, all right, maybe if it
was
the
name of a genus of orchids or something, I might consider
/,brit@'niyk@/. Brittaniquitita!

Are you overlooking the morpheme boundaries in all your
examples?

Did you overlook my "Brittonic" example?

I'd appreciate it if you would answer my question.

The only question is see is "Did you overlook my 'Brittonic' example?"
and I have no idea what your "'Brittonic' example" was.

You could have said so. If you scroll up a bit, you'll see that I gave
"Brittonic" as an example of a word containing a stressed vowel
following a
double consonant. "Brittonic" is analogous (and of course related) to
*"Brittania". In other words, the latter spelling is more plausible than
you
think.

--Your honor, is there a question in there somewhere?

The question was, of course, "Did you overlook my 'Brittonic' example?", and
you've effectively answered it. Could it be that you've ignored the example
so far because it contradicts your statement that all that is needed to
avoid the misspelling *"Brittania" is a "millimoment" of reflection?

Regards,
Ekkehard


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sanskrit pronounciation sources
    ... Ekkehard Dengler wrote: ... benlizross wrote: ... The tt-n spelling ... Did you overlook my "Brittonic" example? ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Sanskrit pronounciation sources
    ... Ekkehard Dengler wrote: ... benlizross wrote: ... The double consonant strongly suggests that the _preceding_ ... Did you overlook my "Brittonic" example? ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Sanskrit pronounciation sources
    ... benlizross wrote: ... The tt-n spelling ... The double consonant strongly suggests that the _preceding_ ... Did you overlook my "Brittonic" example? ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Sanskrit pronounciation sources
    ... benlizross wrote: ... If you knew how to pronounce "Britannica," you'd have a hard ... doctrine of the Immaculate Perfection of English Orthography, ... Did you overlook my "Brittonic" example? ...
    (sci.lang)