Text 4082, 86 rader
Skriven 2012-09-18 21:21:23 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: Pvt nodes vs points
===========================
Hello Roy,

On Saturday September 15 2012 23:22, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> Then how come "Ginger" does not rime with "singer",

 RW> They do. The emphasis of rhyming is the end of the word, not the
 RW> beginning. In this case, errr.

 RW> Lady of Ginger
 RW> was the singer

Changing the definition of "rhyming" does not remove the inconsistency between
the pronounciation and the spelling of tow words that both end in "inger"and
only differ in the first letter.

 RW> Need I go on?

No.

 MvdV>> but "Worcester" rimes with "booster"

 RW> Woos-tar and booster? One is an Englishman's fuck up and the other
 RW> says what it means. The Wooster name is repeated in New England too.

The swipe against the British does not remove the inconsistency between the
spelling and the pronouncuation...

 MvdV>>  and "Gloucester" rimes with "foster"?

 RW> Think so?

I am sure. A pity there are no British native speakers any more to confirm it.

 RW> Go here http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Gloucester and click
 RW> on the American flag and then the British flag to hear the
 RW> pronounciation. They are identical.

It rimes with "foster" and not with "chester".

 RW> Then type in foster and click on that pronounciation.

Rhymes with "Gloucester"...


If "Gloucester" were read as it is written would rime with "Chester"

 RW> Note that the 'Fos' part of the word is pronounced the same in both
 RW> verions, but the ending of the word is pronounced slightly different
 RW> in both. An English variation in pronouncement, but not much in sound.

Irrelevant.

 MvdV>> How come "brake" is not spelled the same as "break",

 RW> Because one refers to the brakes on a mechanical conveyence and the
 RW> other means to break something, like an arm or a leg...

If English were read as it s written - as you claim - they would be be spelled
the same, as they are pronounced the same.

 MvdV>> but "teak" and "take" are not pronounced the same?

 RW> They aren't pronounced the same because they're not spelled the same.

Yeah, yeah....

 MvdV>> How come "reading" rimes with "seeding" when it is a verb, but
 MvdV>> rimes with "bedding"when it is the name of a place west of
 MvdV>> London?

 RW> Same thing. But there would be real confusion if reading were spelled
 RW> reeding, which would have something to do with perhaps the changing of
 RW> the reed in a musical wind instrument.

My point is that - contrary to your claim - the coupling between written and
spoken English is rather weak. Weaker than in any other language that I know.
It is next to impossible to derive the pronounciation from the spelling. There
are  so many inconsistencies that the written and spoken English are almost two
different languages.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)