Chinglish

Fri Aug 29 15:57:57 UTC 2008

I have to reply to MAM because it's not right for anyone to take his kind of crap.  This post is proof that MAN is deficient in listening to what's being said out there.

The alphabetical principle is that letters stand for sounds.  In the case of the word "children," the letters make a good match if said, CHILL-dren in what I call VOAspel because the VOA uses this notation.  But pronounciation lately in USA has been for the most part on TV and radio ~chooldrin, where ~ool is as in "wool" in truespel notation.

This is basic honest reporting of what's going on out there.  My theory is that it's easier to get to the "l" by swapping ~i for ~oo.  The mouth takes shortcuts.  This goes to the point that present sounds are affected most by future sounds .  Also I think that pronunciation gravitates to the easiest way to say things.  Saying ~oo in this case is easier on the mouth that saying ~i.

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 09:09:18 -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
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Damn, forgot to turn off rich formatting. Sorry, folks.)
>
> To Scot and Larry in particular (quoted letters below):
>
> 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.
>
> As to whether he really pronounces words as they are written, or at
> least believes that he does: Earlier I picked one of his first posts
> at random and found this gem:
>
>>>>>
>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0610C&L=ADS-L&P=R3559&I=-3
> 18 Oct 2006
>
> I've noticed a change in pronunciaiton of "children". I would assume it to
> be ~childrin (~ denotes truespel notation). But I'm hearing everywhere
> ~chooldrin (where ~ool is as in ~wool).
>
> Not that I like it. I prefer speech to be as close to tradspel (traditional
> spelling) as possible. Wandering away from it violates the alphabetic
> principle.
>
> <<<<
>
> That last paragraph says it.
>
> 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

_________________________________________________________________
See what people are saying about Windows Live.  Check out featured posts.
http://www.windowslive.com/connect?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_connect2_082008

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