On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:45:11 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

> Note that in this example someone trying to speak 'extinct'  
>English from this would be likely to pronounce the e and full 'gorie'  
>rather then vowel switch the e to a and slur to -gry. 

Oh!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:52:48 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:45:11 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> Note that in this example someone trying to speak 'extinct'
>> English from this would be likely to pronounce the e and full 'gorie'
>> rather then vowel switch the e to a and slur to -gry.
>
> Oh!

Another way to look at it is cyan as ki-an, because from known examples  
"c" is always hard in English when it's the first letter. So we'd could  
also get ky-me for chime for similar reasons. Of course you could spot  
that cy and ch correspond to different sounds in foreign  
derivative/original words, but that assumes you're working with a full  
representative one-to-one vocabulary. IOW it's educated guesswork.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:18:24 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>
>Another way to look at it is cyan as ki-an, because from known examples  
>"c" is always hard in English when it's the first letter. So we'd could  
>also get ky-me for chime for similar reasons. Of course you could spot  
>that cy and ch correspond to different sounds in foreign  
>derivative/original words, but that assumes you're working with a full  
>representative one-to-one vocabulary. IOW it's educated guesswork.

Hmm!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:44:05 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:18:24 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Another way to look at it is cyan as ki-an, because from known examples
>> "c" is always hard in English when it's the first letter. So we'd could
>> also get ky-me for chime for similar reasons. Of course you could spot
>> that cy and ch correspond to different sounds in foreign
>> derivative/original words, but that assumes you're working with a full
>> representative one-to-one vocabulary. IOW it's educated guesswork.
>
> Hmm!

Taciturn - should that be a hard c or a soft c? :-P

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:56:45 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>Taciturn - should that be a hard c or a soft c? :-P

Si, hard man! But dourly :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:41:51 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:56:45 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> Taciturn - should that be a hard c or a soft c? :-P
>
> Si, hard man! But dourly :)

Oh! Hmm!

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:33:09 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>And lo on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:41:51 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
>did spake, saying:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:56:45 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>
>>> Taciturn - should that be a hard c or a soft c? :-P
>>
>> Si, hard man! But dourly :)
>
>Oh! Hmm!
>

Hmm...
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:45:38 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:33:09 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> And lo on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:41:51 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:56:45 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Taciturn - should that be a hard c or a soft c? :-P
>>>
>>> Si, hard man! But dourly :)
>>
>> Oh! Hmm!
>
> Hmm...

Oh...

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:17:38 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>And lo on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:45:38 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
>did spake, saying:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:33:09 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>
>>> And lo on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:41:51 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
>>> did spake, saying:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:56:45 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>>>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Taciturn - should that be a hard c or a soft c? :-P
>>>>
>>>> Si, hard man! But dourly :)
>>>
>>> Oh! Hmm!
>>
>> Hmm...
>
>Oh...
>
Yes!

PS Goodbye Humph.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message