|
 |
’wh’ sound in American English | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages |  | |
| Jar-ptitsa Triglot Senior Member Belgium Joined 5898 days ago 980 posts - 1006 votes  Speaks: French*, Dutch, German | Message 89 of 110 01 June 2009 at 9:59pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
It isn't because of not took the time, but I didn't understand, for example: I apologize then for having such strong convictions and not riding the fence like everyone else here. or An ironic twist that the correct way, in this case, appeals to both sides and the widest number of people where as the other does not. It's good that you're not calling anyone dumb.
it's not about try to please everyone, but about that you're wrong about this: that you say only one version is correct (aspirated wh), when in the most of dialects, "wh" isn't aspirated. I'm not offended (personally, I've high intelligence) but I don't like when a person insult others for such a thing like low IQ, or can't quickly learn or other things - it's nasty and hurtful. I know a girl (she's about 20 or 21 now), and she didn't learn like the others in her class, and some people told her nasty insults and spat in her face :-( She's truly a nice girl, but she didn't live her house about one and half year because of fear after those people did it. It was because she's low IQ. I hate those people who had committed the cruelty.
You're wrong, but it's allowed have your opinion. We better agree that we've different opinions.
how is it correctly? Put a recording of you on the forum, when you read it. I don't know Shakespeare (of course I know the name and that he was very famous author). I try to learn British English (standard) but the modern version, not of Shakespeare. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| rapp Senior Member United States Joined 5731 days ago 129 posts - 204 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Esperanto, Spanish | Message 90 of 110 01 June 2009 at 9:59pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
<<Literary language and spoken language are to [sic] completely different things and irrelevant to anything I'm talking about...>>
<<This is not about spelling, writing, typing, or any other issue not related to the matter at hand.>> <<I'm arguing for strict standards in a literary language.>> Dude. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| rapp Senior Member United States Joined 5731 days ago 129 posts - 204 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Esperanto, Spanish | Message 91 of 110 01 June 2009 at 10:07pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Apparently, the 'k' in 'knight' was pronounced in Middle English, so the spelling has been retained, but the pronunciation has changed over time. You apparently support the current pronunciation. The spelling of 'what' hasn't changed, but the pronunciation has (at least if we credit your assertion that no dictionary before the 60's listed anything other than 'hwat' as an acceptable pronunciation). But of this you do not approve. Is the only difference in these situations the fact that one is complete and one is in progress? Is there any situation in which you'd allow that a single spelling can have multiple correct pronunciations? 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Rout Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5712 days ago 326 posts - 417 votes Speaks: English*, German Studies: Spanish Studies: Hindi | Message 92 of 110 02 June 2009 at 4:04am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
The 'kn' phoneme is a consistently spoken phoneme in which the 'k' is silent. 'wh' is a consistently spoken phoneme as well. If you start saying 'oo' or 'woo' in place of 'hoo' for the word 'who' then I would see your argument. As I've said, let us strive for consistency. Rapp, you are a fool and I refuse to reply to or further acknowledge your extremely fragmentary, multifarious, and fatuous posts. You discredited yourself the moment you said disuse of the pronoun 'thou' was more of a grammatical blunder than the misuse of the 'wh' phoneme. Your burlesquing of a lofty argument sets at naught beseechment of a dignified answer. As I've said, we should come to a unified and consistent manner of speaking. If explanation of the semantics is exigent to your comprehension of the argument and reiteration of my arguments in detail has garnered no further comprehension, then I am almost ready to confess that the tiresome task of trying to impart you knowledge is daunting and fraught with certain failure. I have pity on your teachers. I am almost convinced that this has been your ploy all along; to put me in bad humor so that I may cease to continue in the face of being on the horns of a dilemma. Reasoning with you is idem qoud to conversing with an ape about politics. I have given you good reason to say it my way, now give me a reason not to. Jar-ptitsa, this is not so much an argument about measuring one's intelligence as it is about regarding one's comprehension of facts, rules, and phenomena of significs. Normally, conviviality and appreciativeness would be expected tout de suite of my endeavor to persevere with such an irksome task but instead I am greeted by antagonists who want to argue for argument's sake. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| rapp Senior Member United States Joined 5731 days ago 129 posts - 204 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Esperanto, Spanish | Message 93 of 110 02 June 2009 at 5:42am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
Dearest Routabega,
Once again you dodge the question. That "The 'kn' phoneme is a consistently spoken phoneme in which the 'k' is silent" is true only relatively recently in the history of English. Its pronunciation has changed over time. Why do you consider that new pronunciation correct, but the 'wut' pronunciation incorrect? 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| rapp Senior Member United States Joined 5731 days ago 129 posts - 204 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Esperanto, Spanish | Message 94 of 110 02 June 2009 at 5:45am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
<<The 'kn' phoneme is a consistently spoken phoneme in which the 'k' is silent. 'wh' is a consistently spoken phoneme as well.>>
Yes, the 'wh' in 'what' is consistently pronounced with a silent 'h'. Get used to it. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| rapp Senior Member United States Joined 5731 days ago 129 posts - 204 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Esperanto, Spanish | Message 95 of 110 02 June 2009 at 5:48am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
<<You discredited yourself the moment you said disuse of the pronoun 'thou' was more of a grammatical blunder than the misuse of the 'wh' phoneme.>>
You embarrassed yourself when you claimed to actually still use it, just to try to win an internet argument. Geez, I'm embarrassed for you. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| rapp Senior Member United States Joined 5731 days ago 129 posts - 204 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Esperanto, Spanish | Message 96 of 110 02 June 2009 at 5:58am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
<<1. The dictionary I have that has only the transliteration 'hwut' is the New American Webster dictionary I believe from around the 60's. I have it buried in some other books but I could get you a date if you require it to accredit my argument.>>
<<I am going to repeat this one more time: EVERY DICTIONARY BEFORE THE LAST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY PROVIDED ONE PRONUNCIATION OF 'WHAT' AND THAT'S THE ONLY ONE I FEEL SHOULD BE USED. >> So you have a single dictionary that is packed away, but you're sure that it only specifies a single acceptable pronunciation of 'what', just like *every other* dictionary before 1950!?! Wow. I thought Star Trek fans were bad. You've memorized the entry for 'what' in every dictionary in a 50 year time span? Wow. Did you know that if you go outside, there are, like, girls out there? 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
