Text 21117, 85 rader
Skriven 2011-07-21 19:42:37 av Stewart Arnett (3:772/100)
  Kommentar till text 21100 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: Erroneous English Assumptions
=====================================
Hello Roy.

20 Jul 11 08:38, you wrote to me:

 RW> 20 Jul 11 18:50, Stewart Arnett wrote to Roy Witt:

 DD>>>> We still spell things the "English" way. US English is coloured
 DD>>>> with aberrations.

 RW>>> How do you pronounce 'coloured'? I'd say the aberration is all
 RW>>> in your mind.

 SA>> Colured, definitely not colored, else wise it would not require
 SA>> the U in the second syllable.

 RW> Wrong, Stewart. Take a listen to the pronounciation at;

 RW> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=coloured

Try http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=coloured&submit=Submit

There they say the word our way, the English way not your American way.

The speaker on he above site sounds English your site sounds American so the
pronunciation is suspect in any case.

RW>There's a slight difference, but none that jumps out at you.

Yes the phonic dictionary has differences for colour and color but the
characture limitations mean this medium cannot be used to type phonics, which
is what started this whole thing i believe;)

 SA>> No self respecting English speaker would say 'or' for 'our' in
 SA>> that syllable,

 RW> And no proper English speaker would make it a point of contention.

 SA>> short spelling = careless pronunciation.

 RW> Proper spelling = proper pronunciation.

Yes true and your spelling is not up to scratch.

 SA>>  Note the original 'anglo-norman spelling was colur the latin is
 SA>> color and latin as a language, normally spoken, hasn't been
 SA>> a conversational language in England since the Romans were there,

 RW> Note that the proper pronunciation of the word is still as it was
 RW> during the anglo-norman period. No one pronounces the or as or, but as
 RW> ur.

Then why do you contradict yourself here, when above you say the UR is
incorrect? looks to me like we are both arguing for the same pronunciation of
the damned word!

 SA>>  if it ever was! I as with a surname of Arnett, am unlikely to
 SA>> not be of Norman descent, have always been taught the original
 SA>> ponunciation "Colur". As is/was most common in my little corner
 SA>> of the world

 RW> Then your claim that coloured is proper is a farce.

The word is of Norman descent (read French) and as such the spelling follows
the normal french way. There is no need to correct the word spelling for
scientific continuum to make it read like colorimeter or colorific or even
colorectal, where it is corectly pronounced color not colour....;)

 SA>> Similar with Neighbour ... not "neighbor", that was worth
 SA>> physical enhancement at school when I was there. ;(

 RW> Now your logic sounds like Jim Nabors...

Never heard of him, not English is he? Did his parents get caned for
misspelling their family name?

I completed reading the updates and saw your comment on 'leverage' howjsay
actually makes the comment on the difference between English and American
pronunciation in English we call the tool lever a leever while according to
howjsay the americans say lever hence leverage as against leeverage, so for
where you are it is correct to say leverage, damn French again ;)

Stewart

--- GoldED/2 3.0.1
 * Origin: The RockBBS Auckland NZ 64-9-5799604 (3:772/100)