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

I orry but your uggestion ucks. I'm aying I ain't got
no peech defect.

--- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:

> 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

> >
> >
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs