Print

Print


----- Original Message -----
From: "Muke Tever" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: Powers that be were Re: Newbie says hi


> From: "Jake X" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > On the word 'stoopit', I guess that's an American way of making
'stupid'
> > > stupid, because they can't just do 'stoopid' because that's the normal
> > > pronunciation? The word seems to have essentially become 'stoopid'
> > > /stu;p@d/ here all the time, even though 'student' is still
/stSu;[log in to unmask]
> > >
> > My dialect doesn't have /stSu:d@nt/ at all.  We say /stu;dent/, though
in my
> > case I pronounce the /t/ with aspiration, not as sloppily as to have
/t/ -->
> > /tS/.  This is similar to the way my little brother, when he was
learning to
> > write, misspelled "tree" as "chree": because of the combination of
aspirated
> > t-initial and American semivocalic r, he percieved it with the wrong
> > phonemes.  Anyway....
>
> I wouldn't say it was with the wrong phonemes as that the spelling is
outdated.
> It's certainly /tSri:/ here, with /S/ epenthetic[1].  And I wouldn't blame
the
> aspiration either, because e.g., "dream" is /dZri:m/.  [At least in my
lect.
> Yours will almost certainly differ, but presumably not your brother's.]
>
>     *Muke!
 Once again, I have /dri:m/. (No aspiration, because [d] is voiced.)  My
brother's not here at the moment to say it for me, but in that case, I think
he would agree with me.  Dunno.

Jake