Leonardo Castro <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>  --- On Sun, 3/24/13, Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>  Also, often the homophones simply can't occur in the same places. In Engl. no 
>> one confuses "so" and "sew", or "made" and "maid", etc. and even things like

He's a made man.
He's a maid man.

Me I don't notice any discernible stress shift on this one.

Unless interlocutor does some phake Italian accent and end the first sentence
with "capisce?" I wouldn't know which to assume. Context is helpful, but at
least in this instance I might easily confuse those two unless some further
information is forthcoming!

At least "so" and "sew" are different POS. But "sow" (nt "sow"!) and "sew"
have some potential for confusion. (Excepting, of course, our predilection
for verbing words that aren't properly verbs, I suppose some confusion could
arise: "Don't you 'so' me, mister!" -- though I am at a loss why anyone would
order someone else not to sew them!)


>>  "I have to."
>>  "I have, too."
>>  "I have two."
>>  are usually distinguished by stress/intonation.
> Besides, if "you have too", we can say that "we have two". 
> :-P
> At mais!
> Leonardo
>>  But even words that are just near-homophones get confused, esp. (I've 
> noticed) "gibe" and "jive", "rack" and 
> "wrack" (the latter admittedly rare), and the egregious use-- 
> sometimes even in places where a good copy editor ought to have caught it-- of 
> "loose" for "lose".