Re: Re[3]: [tied] Mille (thousand)

Hmmm?

Do you also drop initial [s} from English words?

If so, you have a definite speech defect.


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [tied] Mille (thousand)


> I'm sorry but those quadraitic equations and know
> theories have clouded your head. I'm originally from
> Ohio and we clearly said "wooden" for <wouldn't> i.e.
> /wudn/, although we did use the interrogatory /wunch&/
>
>
> --- "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> > At 4:16:38 PM on Sunday, March 9, 2008,
> > fournet.arnaud
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: Daniel J. Milton
> >
> > >> Would anyone but a linguist "surmise" or
> > "reanalyse" an
> > >> s-mobile? Isn't the s mobile because it comes
> > and goes
> > >> naturally without thought by the speakers?
> >
> > > I don't think something can come and go without
> > thought.
> >
> > > (in linguistics or in porn likewise)
> >
> > Happens all the time in ordinary speech: for <cat> a
> > single
> > speaker may say [kæt], [kæ?t], or [kæ?] and never
> > notice
> > that the [t] has disappeared completely from the
> > last. A
> > speaker very likely won't notice that <wouldn't>
> > ['wUdnt]
> > has become [wUnt]. And so on.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>