Re: You read it hear first! [was: Re: marry merry mary]


John Atkinson wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote...

Bob Cunningham wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:

[...]

I might have added that _Merriam-Webster's Unabridged
Dictionary_ also has the same vowel in "serious", "cereal",
and "seer", again except for the one-sense variant
pronunciation of "seer".

Again, are there divergers?

What is this "one-sence variant pronunciation"?

It's typical of PDD's* muddle-headed hit-or-miss reading
that he failed to perceive that I had earlier--in the
posting he was replying to--made clear what I meant by
"one-sense variant pronunciation" of "seer": pronounced the
variant way for one sense of the word "seer" only.

If Cunningham weren't so senile, and so intent on hurling unwarranted
insults, he would see that I was asking for some evidence, other than
a
citation in an undated dictionary, that a distinction in pronunciation
exists.

Don't know about Bob, but in my dialect, <cere>, <sere>, <sear>, <seer>
(the unit of weight),

unit of weight? Borrowed from what language?

and <seer> (the visionary) are all homophones,
namely /si:@/. <seer>, the bimorphemic word meaning one who sees,
isn't, since it has two syllables --/si: . @/.

How is 'visionary' not a bimorphemic word meaning one who sees visions?

_Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary_ doesn't make that
distinction, but the _New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_
does:

So does my Concise Oxford Dictionary (1933).

seer /sI<schwa>, in sense 2 also "si:<schwa>/ n.1

2 gen. A person who sees. [...] Cf. SEE-ER. LME.

Hmm. This isn't the same as the pronunciation in my COD, which (just as

note that he didn't give a date for his NSOED

in the phonemization I gave above for my own dialect) has "long" I (my
/i:/, Peter's /iy/ I think) in all the words, but puts an optional

yes

syllable break in the last one. For me, the break's obligatory, not
optional.

One who sees is the same word as sybil.

It used to be (interpreting "same word" in the sense you obviously
intend!). It no longer is, for me (and, I suspect, most other English
speakers).

Weird.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading