Re: Sanskrit pronounciation sources


"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154537810.644215.146900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

benlizro@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
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?

Oh ***! It's been a long time since I got any practice with this.
Let's see...page 297, rule 37(a)(1)..."do not overlook morpheme
boundaries". Uh...page 338, Glossary of Technical Terms: "'morpheme
boundary' may include morpheme boundaries which may have existed at any
time in the history of the word, irrespective of synchronic reality".

You apparently have a different edition from mine

Uh oh. Well, so "morpheme boundary" suggests the preceding vowel should
not be stressed, except maybe in...exceptions? like imminent,
dissolute, assonance, suffocate...

Morpheme boundaries were the SPE device for making English stress
completely predictable and therefore non-phonemic. (Not that that's
what they said they were doing -- they merely replaced the notation of
stress with the notation of a variety of boundaries.)

And what is it that you say you are doing?

Suggesting some rules of thumb, or mnemonics, for spelling words that
you know how to pronounce?

I'm probably not alone in suspecting that you're simply trying to divert
attention from your unsuccessful attempt to ridicule one particular
misspelling.

Regards,
Ekkehard


.

Quantcast