Chinglish

[Tom Zurinskas]

Can you believe this hateful bozo.  Somebody tell him that the internet is far more adequate than any book for reading about dialects and phonetic theory.  You can HEAR the words and sounds.

I have never made it a "point of pride that I've never studied linguistics".  That makes a liar out of MAM.  Of course I've studied it through the internet and have had many questions and observations over 20 years.

My interest is a simple phonetic system that is English friendly so kids could use it for phonemic awareness.  IPA and SAMPA and all the others are neither English nor computer friendly.  Educators don't use them.  Newspapers don't use them.  Even the Voice of American doesn't use them.  Meanwhile dicionary phonetic guides are nonstandard and also use keyboard unfriendly symbols.  Truespel just uses letters of the alphabet.  Simpler is better.

Note that Mark Mandel hasn't made a point about the phonetic issue below, just an attack on me, ad hominem and has also perverted the truth.  He's a sicko.  If his rantings have diminished honest input to this forum they have diminished us all.  I have seen other posts here that have done the same.  For shame.


Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL5+
See truespel.com - and the 4 truespel books plus "Occasional Poems" at authorhouse.com.

> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:04:33 -0400
> From: thnidu at GMAIL.COM
> Subject: Re: Chinglish
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender: American Dialect Society
> Poster: Mark Mandel
> Subject: Re: Chinglish
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Scot and Larry):
>
> Save your breath/fingers, guys. Tom is not just clueless, but totally
> unclueable. He makes it a point of pride that he has never studied
> linguistics or phonetics in the, I think, 20-some years he's been trying to
> peddle his crank theories. He'll never crack a textbook: that would be
> tantamount to admitting that it's all been a waste.
>
> m a m
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Scot LaFaive  wrote:
>
>>>I'd call it an allophone of "g" in "singing".
>>
>> Tom, I'm not sure anyone would call it that. Regardless, you are missing
>> the
>> big point here: for most people, words like "sing" and "finger" have no [g]
>> sound. It isn't [s]+[I]+[n]+[g].....it's [s]+[I]+[ng]. There is a big
>> difference between the [g] and [ng] sounds. Please refer to any respectable
>> book on phonology for more information.
>>
>>>I personally have two "g" s for "singing". I gues you have none. Must
>> sound like sinnin'.
>>
>> I don't think I've ever heard anyone pronounce "singing" with two [g]
>> sounds; I usually hear two [ng] sounds.
>>
>>>I once make a list of words where the "g" is supposed to be silent. Words
>> like finger, singer, linger, dinger.
>>
>> I've also never heard these pronounced without the [ng] sound.
>>
>> Scot
>>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Laurence Horn wrote:
>
> At 2:25 AM +0000 8/29/08, Tom Zurinskas wrote:
>>Paul,
>>
>>I'd call it an allophone of "g" in "singing". I
>>can hear in m-w.com an weak "g" for sing.
>>There's something there because "singing" does
>>not sound like sinning. I personally have two
>>"g" s for "singing". I gues you have none.
>>Must sound like sinnin'.
>
> Tom, do you really not know what a velar nasal
> is? And if so, are you not prepared to look it
> up? And if if not, are you sure you really want
> to lecture us on phonetics?
>
>>I once make a list of words where the "g" is
>>supposed to be silent. Words like finger,
>>singer, linger, dinger. Folks could not pick
>>out the ones where the "g" was silent.
>
> ???? What do you mean by a silent "g"? Many, I
> would hazard to say most, speakers of U.S.
> English have a [g] after the velar nasal
> represented by the  in "finger" and "linger",
> but not in "singer" and "dinger" (any more than
> in "sing" or "ding"), but I am quite sure all
> English speakers have velar nasals in each of
> these words, not alveolar ones. Your mention of
> "sinnin'" for "singing" is a red herring
> (although of course many speakers do have an
> alveolar, at least some of the time,
> corresponding to the *second*  in "singing"
> as opposed to the first). What is a silent "g"?
> Is it what I have in "gnostic" and "gnome"?
>
>> If some dialects have silent "g"s there, I
>>would think they are in the minority.
>
> Are you really claiming that you pronounce "sing"
> with a (non-nasal) velar stop, and "singing" with
> two?
>
> LH
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

_________________________________________________________________
Get thousands of games on your PC, your mobile phone, and the web with Windows®.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108588800/direct/01/

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org