Print

Print


Sorry, thought this word was well-known in these parts.  It's
certainly a frequent participant in posts to Language Log.

On 4/14/09, Parker Glynn-Adey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> For what it's worth, this one threw me for a loop too. I  checked the OED
> too, no luck. But it _is_ in Webster’s New Millennium Dictionary of English.
> They'll let anything in. ;)
>
> 2009/4/14 Eugene Oh <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> This is OT, but what does "cromulent" mean, and where does it come from? I
>> couldn't find it in the OED. Is it slang?
>> Eugene
>>
>> 2009/4/15 Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> > Um, "reasonable" to whom, and what is the scope of this "declaration"?
>> >  Questions without context don't often yield useful answers.  Better
>> > to overdescribe what you're doing.
>> >
>> > If you want to create a Roman orthography/transcription for your
>> > conlang where <r> is a vowel rather than a consonant, go nuts. That's
>> > perfectly cromulent. If you want to create an alternate orthography
>> > for English, well, ok, but don't expect folks to be able to read it,
>> > especially given the issues with rhotic vs non-rhotic dialects.
>> >
>> > If something else, well, tell us what it is!  Its probably reasonable
>> > for some accepted value of that word no matter what...
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4/14/09, Linvi Charles <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > > Would it be reasonable to declare that <r> corresponds to the rhotic
>> > vowel
>> > > (or at least approximant or something) only (excluding its use as a
>> > > consonant)?
>> > >
>> > > For example:
>> > >
>> > > "mrdr" would sound like "murder"
>> > > "drt" would sound like "dirt"
>> > > "lrn" would sound like "learn"
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sent from my mobile device
>> >
>> > Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
>> >
>>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>