|
Home > Archive > Architecture > November 2006 > Pluralization (was Re: How many feet in one story.)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Pluralization (was Re: How many feet in one story.)
|
|
| Charles Jones 2006-11-21, 1:25 pm |
| In article <1164120653.043573.88970@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
ricodjour@worldemail.com says...
> In any event, that one story plus 17' is weird. That's a damn tall
> roof on top of a story. Maybe there are a lot of 15/12 pitches* in the
> area...
>
> R
>
> * That pluralization really pisses me off. There is
> abso-frickin-lutely no reason to stick an E in there.
Sure there is, because you say the 'e' when you speak. Or, at least
most people do. The reason you do is that the terminal sound of the
root word is the 'tch' blend, which ends with you exhaling with your
tongue on the roof of your mouth. Forming the following 's' sound is
going to simply move the tip of your tongue a bit closer to the palate.
The two sounds are so similar that they will lose distinction. So, we
stick the 'e' in, causing the creation of an additional syllable and
enforcing the distinction in sounds.
--
Charles Jones [ charlesj@frii.com ]
Loveland, Colorado, USA
AIM: LovelandCharles MSN: charlesj68@passport.com
http://www.myspace.com/charlesj68
| |
| RicodJour 2006-11-21, 1:25 pm |
| Charles Jones wrote:
> ricodjour@worldemail.com says...
>
>
> Sure there is, because you say the 'e' when you speak. Or, at least
> most people do. The reason you do is that the terminal sound of the
> root word is the 'tch' blend, which ends with you exhaling with your
> tongue on the roof of your mouth. Forming the following 's' sound is
> going to simply move the tip of your tongue a bit closer to the palate.
> The two sounds are so similar that they will lose distinction. So, we
> stick the 'e' in, causing the creation of an additional syllable and
> enforcing the distinction in sounds.
English is not a phonetic language. The language is needlessly complex
and arbitrary.
The schwa sound is already in place as a remnant from the -ch ending.
Say pitchs out loud. It comes out the same as pitches unless you make
some rather odd vocal contortions and try to accentuate the sibilant
sound.
Ever notice how they don't put a stop light at a stop sign? It would
be redundant and is unnecessary (please don't tell me the analogy sucks
- the point still stands).
Dropping all of those unnecessary E's in itches, glitches, witches,
bitches, ditches, etc., would save almost a page per book with no ill
effects. Typing fingers would last a month longer over a lifetime.
There would be an extra hour of sunshine each day. It makes sense. We
should do it. Violent overthrow of the regime is the only way.
R
| |
|
| On 21 Nov 2006, RicodJour wrote
> Charles Jones wrote:
>
> English is not a phonetic language. The language is needlessly
> complex and arbitrary.
....and applying logical reasoning to the resultant spelling mess is
about as promising as reasoning with a two-year-old who wants that
ice cream *right now*.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Architectural and topographical historian
For e-mail, change harvey to harvey.van
| |
| RicodJour 2006-11-21, 1:25 pm |
| HVS wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2006, RicodJour wrote
>
> ...and applying logical reasoning to the resultant spelling mess is
> about as promising as reasoning with a two-year-old who wants that
> ice cream *right now*.
Right on, brother! I don't know what you mean, but it sounds great.
BTW, are you joining the crusade to clean up the language or not?
R
| |
|
| On 21 Nov 2006, RicodJour wrote
> HVS wrote:
>
> Right on, brother! I don't know what you mean, but it sounds
> great. BTW, are you joining the crusade to clean up the language
> or not?
Nah -- I figure there's no point, really. The language tends to do
what it's going to do, and trying to clean it up by rule-making is
pretty well doomed from the off.
(There's a fellow who posts in alt.usage.english who figures we need
to change the spelling of the present and past tenses of the verb "to
read", in order to eliminate the ambiguity of "reed" vs "redd". It
ain't gonna happen...)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Architectural and topographical historian
For e-mail, change harvey to harvey.van
| |
| RicodJour 2006-11-21, 1:25 pm |
| HVS wrote:
>
> Nah -- I figure there's no point, really. The language tends to do
> what it's going to do, and trying to clean it up by rule-making is
> pretty well doomed from the off.
>
> (There's a fellow who posts in alt.usage.english who figures we need
> to change the spelling of the present and past tenses of the verb "to
> read", in order to eliminate the ambiguity of "reed" vs "redd". It
> ain't gonna happen...)
I'm not talking about rule making, I'm talking about overthrowing in
the existing regime. That's not work, that's fun!
Let's start by getting rid of whom. Or at least give it another
definition. Any suggestions?
R
| |
|
| On 21 Nov 2006, RicodJour wrote
> HVS wrote:
>
> I'm not talking about rule making, I'm talking about
> overthrowing in the existing regime. That's not work, that's
> fun!
>
> Let's start by getting rid of whom. Or at least give it another
> definition. Any suggestions?
Start by ridiculing it in speech: insist on pronouncing it "wha-
hom".
"To wha-hom am I speaking?">
--
Cheers, Harvey
Architectural and topographical historian
For e-mail, change harvey to harvey.van
| |
|
| "RicodJour"> wrote
> Violent overthrow of the regime is the only way.
Hold up, lemme find my torch, pitchfork and axe handle....
| |
| RicodJour 2006-11-21, 1:25 pm |
| HVS wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2006, RicodJour wrote
>
> Start by ridiculing it in speech: insist on pronouncing it "wha-
> hom".
>
> "To wha-hom am I speaking?">
Hmmm. I like that. I'll broach it at the next secret meeting. Don't
forget, it's at Callahan's on the second Tuesday of the month at 8 PM
in the back room. Keep it on the down low.
R
| |
| Charles Jones 2006-11-21, 1:25 pm |
| In article <1164129842.438901.325990@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
ricodjour@worldemail.com says...
>
> English is not a phonetic language. The language is needlessly complex
> and arbitrary.
English is a fine phonetic language we just quit pronouncing the phonems
the way they were intended and never let the spelling catch up.
Well, then there are all the loanwords. But I blame that on the French
....
--
Charles Jones [ charlesj@frii.com ]
Loveland, Colorado, USA
AIM: LovelandCharles MSN: charlesj68@passport.com
http://www.myspace.com/charlesj68
| |
|
| "RicodJour"> wrote
> HVS wrote:
>
> I'm not talking about rule making, I'm talking about overthrowing in
> the existing regime. That's not work, that's fun!
>
> Let's start by getting rid of whom. Or at least give it another
> definition. Any suggestions?
Get rid of all silent letters.
I mean, whats the point?
Just think of how much time is wasted putting unused letters in words all
over the place.
Get rid of all double letters too.
| |
| RicodJour 2006-11-21, 8:25 pm |
| Don wrote:
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>
> Get rid of all silent letters.
> I mean, whats the point?
> Just think of how much time is wasted putting unused letters in words all
> over the place.
> Get rid of all double letters too.
Alright, now we're getting somewhere! See? Right there - I used
alright instead of the technically correct "al right". If already is
acceptable, alright should be, too.
Your sugestions are excelent. You're our new vice president.
Liberate the language! Burn William Safire in effigy!
R
| |
| Rick Bass 2006-11-22, 3:25 am |
|
This is exactly why I love alt.architecture! I learn about the pitch
of my roof, the heigth of my roof and how to pronounce existential
words.
Thanks for the help with all of my problems!
I Love you guys!
Rick
| |
|
| "Rick Bass"> wrote
> I Love you guys!
geezis, its 7am, is it budweiser time already?
|
|
|
|
|