 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:35:24 +0100, Doctor John
<doc### [at] gmail com> did spake, saying:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> Wait... people *know* how to pronounce Latin now? I thought it was a
>>>> dead language, and hence we'll never "really" know what the "correct"
>>>> way is.
>>>
> <snip>
>>
>> Further Latin is used in taxonomy and pretty heavily in the medical
>> field.
>
> IIRC there's a bunch of guys living in the centre of Rome who speak it
> pretty well ;-)
To be precise they're speaking Ecclesiastical Latin not Classical Latin,
as I said we know (guess) on the pronunciation of Classical Latin from
foreign renderings. If English became extinct but German was still spoken
then we could guess how the word category was pronounced from the German
kategorie. 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. IOW you could
probably make yourself understood, but you'd be considered to have an odd
accent or most likely a non-native speaker.
--
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 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
