A puzzling apostrophe.
Raymond S. Wise
a standard spelling. It's an entry in a number of online dictionaries,
although surprisingly not in either the Merriam-Webster online dictionary at
www.m-w.com or the 11th Collegiate. In yesterday's *St. Paul (Minnesota)
Pioneer Press,* on page A22, appeared a full-page ad for Rainbow Foods, a
supermarket chain. An anthropomorphized pear was speaking to an
anthropomorphized carrot, saying "Wanna' get fresh?"
So what's the deal with the apostrophe?
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Django Cat
<mplsra...@gbronline.com> wrote:
> The word "wanna" is one of those nonstandard terms (like "ain't") which
> has
> a standard spelling. It's an entry in a number of online dictionaries,
> although surprisingly not in either the Merriam-Webster online dictionary
> at
> www.m-w.com or the 11th Collegiate. In yesterday's *St. Paul (Minnesota)
> Pioneer Press,* on page A22, appeared a full-page ad for Rainbow Foods, a
> supermarket chain. An anthropomorphized pear was speaking to an
> anthropomorphized carrot, saying "Wanna' get fresh?"
>
> So what's the deal with the apostrophe?
>
>
Sounds like a heroic example of 'greengrocer's bastard apostrophe' (*best
carrot's sold here).
It's comforting to know 'wanna' isn't in MW.
DCC
CyberCypher
2004:
> The word "wanna" is one of those nonstandard terms (like "ain't")
> which has a standard spelling. It's an entry in a number of online
> dictionaries, although surprisingly not in either the
> Merriam-Webster online dictionary at www.m-w.com or the 11th
> Collegiate. In yesterday's *St. Paul (Minnesota) Pioneer Press,*
> on page A22, appeared a full-page ad for Rainbow Foods, a
> supermarket chain. An anthropomorphized pear was speaking to an
> anthropomorphized carrot, saying "Wanna' get fresh?"
>
> So what's the deal with the apostrophe?
>
Wel'l, if'n I had'da put in'n apostrophe, I'd stick it in'na mid'dle
betwe'en the two "n"s in "wan'na" to show the mis'sing "t".
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
Michael Nitabach
news:Xns9472E5CE9...@130.133.1.4:
If'n you're gonn'a do this, you've gott'a stick it after the two
"n"s, like so: "wann'a".
--
Mike Nitabach
CyberCypher
I tried it that way, but it didn't look right.
Raymond S. Wise
news:opr1vear...@news.freenetname.co.uk...
I don't find it comforting, I find it disturbing. They don't have "wanna,"
but they have "wanna-be" in the online dictionary at www.m-w.com and
"wannabe," with a secondary variant "wannabee," in the 11th Collegiate (no
"wanna-be). "Wanna," like "gonna," is a nonstandard usage with a standard
spelling. The word "gonna" isn't in the Merriam-Webster dictionaries either.
Both "wanna" and "gonna" appear regularly in print, where they are used when
representing informal language and nonstandard speech. They should be in
every general dictionary--including "college" dictionaries--and in large
bilingual dictionaries: The English section of my *Oxford-Hachette French
Dictionary* has both.
Harvey Van Sickle
> "Django Cat" <nos...@absolutelynospam.com> wrote in message
> news:opr1vear...@news.freenetname.co.uk...
>> It's comforting to know 'wanna' isn't in MW.
> I don't find it comforting, I find it disturbing. They don't have
> "wanna," but they have "wanna-be" in the online dictionary at
> www.m-w.com and "wannabe," with a secondary variant "wannabee," in
> the 11th Collegiate (no "wanna-be). "Wanna," like "gonna," is a
> nonstandard usage with a standard spelling. The word "gonna" isn't
> in the Merriam-Webster dictionaries either. Both "wanna" and
> "gonna" appear regularly in print, where they are used when
> representing informal language and nonstandard speech. They should
> be in every general dictionary--including "college"
> dictionaries--and in large bilingual dictionaries: The English
> section of my *Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary* has both.
Collins has both, as well. Interestingly, they classify "wanna" as a
representation of dialect, but gonna" as slang.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
Raymond S. Wise
news:Xns94729748...@62.253.162.115...
> On 16 Jan 2004, Raymond S. Wise wrote
> > "Django Cat" <nos...@absolutelynospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:opr1vear...@news.freenetname.co.uk...
>
> >> It's comforting to know 'wanna' isn't in MW.
>
>
> > I don't find it comforting, I find it disturbing. They don't have
> > "wanna," but they have "wanna-be" in the online dictionary at
> > www.m-w.com and "wannabe," with a secondary variant "wannabee," in
> > the 11th Collegiate (no "wanna-be). "Wanna," like "gonna," is a
> > nonstandard usage with a standard spelling. The word "gonna" isn't
> > in the Merriam-Webster dictionaries either. Both "wanna" and
> > "gonna" appear regularly in print, where they are used when
> > representing informal language and nonstandard speech. They should
> > be in every general dictionary--including "college"
> > dictionaries--and in large bilingual dictionaries: The English
> > section of my *Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary* has both.
>
>
> Collins has both, as well. Interestingly, they classify "wanna" as a
> representation of dialect, but gonna" as slang.
It looks like they've both been around for awhile: The *Encarta World
English Dictionary,* North American Edition, dates "wanna" to the late 19th
century. It dates "gonna" to the early 20th century.
Jerry Friedman
> The word "wanna" is one of those nonstandard terms (like "ain't") which has
> a standard spelling. It's an entry in a number of online dictionaries,
> although surprisingly not in either the Merriam-Webster online dictionary at
> www.m-w.com or the 11th Collegiate. In yesterday's *St. Paul (Minnesota)
> Pioneer Press,* on page A22, appeared a full-page ad for Rainbow Foods, a
> supermarket chain. An anthropomorphized pear was speaking to an
> anthropomorphized carrot, saying "Wanna' get fresh?"
>
> So what's the deal with the apostrophe?
I see that now and then. It seems to mean that the word or its
spelling isn't standard.
--
Jerry Friedman
John Dean
There's a 't' missing? Who knew?
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Raymond S. Wise
news:96efe132.04011...@posting.google.com...
The spelling "wanna" is a standard spelling of a nonstandard term, as can be
seen by the fact that it is an entry in so many dictionaries. That is, to
represent the pronunciation in question, "wanna" is the spelling which is
usually used if the spelling "want to" is not used. It is, as the dictionary
at www.infoplease.com puts it, a pronunciation spelling.
It may well be that "wanna" does represent a pronunciation in informal
Standard American English. That is, like the so-called "elided-'g'"
spellings such as "eatin'," "speakin'," and so forth, it is sometimes spoken
by the standard speaker when speaking casually, while the more conventional
pronunciation is used when speaking more precisely.
Bob Cunningham
You mean, I suppose, that you didn't know a "t" was missing,
but you did know that two "t"s were missing. "Wanna",
pronounced ['wA:n@], is a contraction of "want to",
pronounced ['wA:nt t@]. The apostrophization should be
"wann'a" if anyone should want to apostrophize, which no one
should. Some people might want to use two apostrophes, one
for each missing "t" ("wann''a"), but I wouldn't.
I guess the added "n" may be to keep the reader from wanting
to pronounce it ['weIn@]. But I don't see what keeps the
reader from wanting to pronounce it ['w&n@] until he or she
realizes it's a contraction for "want to" and the
pronunciation is then inherited from that of "want".
CyberCypher
Ya lern sumpun nu ever dei awn AUE, doncha?
Adrian Bailey
news:dqOdna3elp8...@gbronline.com...
> The word "wanna" is one of those nonstandard terms (like "ain't") which
has
> a standard spelling. It's an entry in a number of online dictionaries,
> although surprisingly not in either the Merriam-Webster online dictionary
at
> www.m-w.com or the 11th Collegiate. In yesterday's *St. Paul (Minnesota)
> Pioneer Press,* on page A22, appeared a full-page ad for Rainbow Foods, a
> supermarket chain. An anthropomorphized pear was speaking to an
> anthropomorphized carrot, saying "Wanna' get fresh?"
>
> So what's the deal with the apostrophe?
No extra charge.
Adrian
Ben Measures
Hash: SHA1
Well said, sound logic.
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| The spelling "wanna" is a standard spelling of a nonstandard term, as
can be
| seen by the fact that it is an entry in so many dictionaries. That is, to
| represent the pronunciation in question, "wanna" is the spelling which is
| usually used if the spelling "want to" is not used. It is, as the
dictionary
| at www.infoplease.com puts it, a pronunciation spelling.
|
| It may well be that "wanna" does represent a pronunciation in informal
| Standard American English. That is, like the so-called "elided-'g'"
| spellings such as "eatin'," "speakin'," and so forth, it is sometimes
spoken
| by the standard speaker when speaking casually, while the more
conventional
| pronunciation is used when speaking more precisely.
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFACKPGkY9EF6QEdTkRAjpqAJ4sc/wyp4V9swPOuABMpb47ch7RKgCgpUKl
Ot9y9/fzDM9KdXPw4ErITCc=
=TT3a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Michael Nitabach
news:Hs1Ob.57$oT5...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk:
This is the first top-post I have ever seen with a purported PGP
signature.
--
Mike Nitabach
Raymond S. Wise
In the newsgroup fr.lettres.langue.anglaise the use of "a-" in such
dialectal sentences as "I'm a-fixin' to answer you." came up for discussion.
I found the following under the entry for "a" as a preposition in *The
Century Dictionary,* an American dictionary of 1895 at
www.century-dictionary.com . This is relevant to the present discussion
because it appears to show a standard spelling for a nonstandard usage in
the very process of development. It's also interesting in its own right:
Note the mention of the controversy at the end of the 19th century involving
the progressive passive participle, as in "The house is being built." and
"The work is being done."
[quote, with pronunciation represented by ASCII IPA]
*a*3 [@] or [eI], _prep. [<ME. and late AS. _a,_ re-
duced form of _an, on,_ on, in : see _on._] A reduced
form of the preposition _on,_ formerly common
in all the uses of _on,_ but now restricted to cer-
tain constructions in which the preposition is
more or less disguised, being usually written as
one word with the following noun. [...] (_d_) Of
process : In course of, with a verbal noun in _-ing,_
taken passively : as, the house is _a_ building ;
"while the ark was _a_ preparing" (1 Pet. iii. 20) ;
while these things were _a_ doing. The prepo-
sitional use is clearly seen in the alterna-
tive construction with _in :_ as, "Forty and six
years was this temple _in_ building," John ii. 20.
In modern use the preposition is omitted, and the verbal
noun is treated as a present participle taken passively :
as, the house _is building._ But none of these forms of
expression has become thoroughly popular, the popular
instinct being shown in the recent development of the
desired "progressive passive participle" : as, the house _is_
being built,_ the work _is being done,_ etc. This construction,
though condemned by logicians and purists, is well estab-
lished in popular speech, and will probably pass into
correct literary usage. (_e_) Of action : In, to, into ;
with a verbal noun in _-ing,_ taken actively.
(1) With _be :_ as, to be _a_ coming ; to be _a_ doing ; to be _a_
fighting. Now only colloquial or provincial, literary
usage omitting the preposition, and treating the verbal
noun as a present participle : as, to be coming ; to be
doing. (2) With verbs of motion : as, to go _a_ fishing ; to
go _a_ wooing ; to go _a_ begging ; to fall _a_ crying ; to set
_a_ going. The preposition is often joined to the noun
by a hyphen, as to go _a_-fishing, or sometimes omitted,
as, to go fishing, to set going, etc. For other examples of
the uses of _a_3, _prep.,_ see the prepositional phrases _abed,
aboard, ahead,_ etc., or the simple nouns.
[end quote]
The spelling of the usage appears to have become standardized in the "a-"
spelling, that is, in the form which uses a hyphen. When the pronunciation
itself is standard--the pronunciation having become lexicalized in a
standard dialect--as in the words "aboard" and "ahead," no hyphen is used.
meirman
Wise" <mplsra...@gbronline.com> posted:
>> --
>> Jerry Friedman
>
>
>The spelling "wanna" is a standard spelling of a nonstandard term, as can be
>seen by the fact that it is an entry in so many dictionaries. That is, to
>represent the pronunciation in question, "wanna" is the spelling which is
>usually used if the spelling "want to" is not used. It is, as the dictionary
>at www.infoplease.com puts it, a pronunciation spelling.
>
>It may well be that "wanna" does represent a pronunciation in informal
>Standard American English. That is, like the so-called "elided-'g'"
>spellings such as "eatin'," "speakin'," and so forth, it is sometimes spoken
>by the standard speaker when speaking casually, while the more conventional
>pronunciation is used when speaking more precisely.
I wanna be around to pick up the pieces, when somebody breaks your
heart...
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years
Martin Ambuhl
> In the newsgroup fr.lettres.langue.anglaise the use of "a-" in such
> dialectal sentences as "I'm a-fixin' to answer you." came up for discussion.
> I found the following under the entry for "a" as a preposition in *The
> Century Dictionary,* an American dictionary of 1895 at
> www.century-dictionary.com . This is relevant to the present discussion
> because it appears to show a standard spelling for a nonstandard usage in
> the very process of development.
I may misunderstand your point. It seems that this only makes sense if the
Century is not the end of the 19th, but the end of the 14th. The OED1, in
the 3rd and 4th columns of the prepositional use of 'a' quotes, among others,
[Sense 12, "in process of," "in course of"]
Langland (1393) "We have a window a worchyng"
The hyphenated form
Bentley (1692) "The state or condition of matter before the world was
a-making..."
[Sense 13a, "with /be/ engaged in. /arch./ or /dial./]
Berners (1523) "They had ben a fyghtyng with theyr ennemies."
The hyphenated form
Montagu (1716) "Orders ... which may possibly be a month a-coming."
[Sense 13b, "with verb of motion: to, into; to /go a fishing/..."
Tyndale (1526) "Simon Peter sayde vunto them: I goo a fyshynge."
--
Martin Ambuhl
Daniel James
> CyberCypher wrote:
> > Wel'l, if'n I had'da put in'n apostrophe, I'd stick it in'na mid'dle
> > betwe'en the two "n"s in "wan'na" to show the mis'sing "t".
>
> There's a 't' missing? Who knew?
More worrying: there's an 'n' after the missing 't'(s)?
Cheers,
Daniel.
Raymond S. Wise
news:tv8Ob.11926$i4....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I think I probably did come to the wrong conclusion. I took the quote under
definition (e)(2), "The preposition is often joined to the noun by a hyphen,
as to go _a_-fishing, or sometimes omitted, as, to go fishing, to set going,
etc." to be a statement about current usage, as if it said "The preposition
is now often joined to the noun by a hyphen..." rather than a statement
about how the usage had been represented historically, which was probably
the meaning which was intended.
Aaron J. Dinkin
[Regarding "wanna":]
> I guess the added "n" may be to keep the reader from wanting
> to pronounce it ['weIn@]. But I don't see what keeps the
> reader from wanting to pronounce it ['w&n@] until he or she
> realizes it's a contraction for "want to" and the
> pronunciation is then inherited from that of "want".
The rules of English spelling do, according to which the default
pronunciation for <wanna> is /'wAn@/, not /'w&n@/. A short <a> that
follows a /w/ is almost universally pronounced as though it were a short
<o>, unless it's followed by a velar consonant. This is very consistent.
/A/ is the vowel in "want", "wanton", "wander", "wand", "wan", "Taiwan",
and "swan", not to mention other words in which the following consonant
isn't <n>. And "wanna", too.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Ross Howard
<din...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrought:
>On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:40:48 GMT, Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>[Regarding "wanna":]
>
>> I guess the added "n" may be to keep the reader from wanting
>> to pronounce it ['weIn@]. But I don't see what keeps the
>> reader from wanting to pronounce it ['w&n@] until he or she
>> realizes it's a contraction for "want to" and the
>> pronunciation is then inherited from that of "want".
>
>The rules of English spelling do,
You found them? Where?
--
Ross Howard
Jonathan Jordan
news:buq3pc$d2jm$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
It doesn't surprise me that some Americans have the same vowel in
"Taiwan" as in "swan", but I would have thought that they would be
FRWB. I have the "cat" vowel, but the "father" vowel wouldn't
surprise me.
Jonathan
Bob Cunningham
But "wack", "wacky", "wacko", "WAC", "WAF", "waff", "waft",
"wag", "waggle", "wagon", "wamble", "wangle", "wax".
Your "rule" has so many exceptions as to make it useless as
a strict rule, but it may be useful as a hint at a probable
pronunciation.
And yes, some of the words I've listed have variant
pronunciations. Some people would say [wA:ft] for "waft",
but I would say [w&ft]. Some would pronounce "wangle"
['w&Ngl-]; I pronounce it more like ['weNgl-] ("a" in "rain"
minus the glide).
For some remarks about English-spelling rules in general,
see Message-ID: <95032100...@mogur.com>.
Jonathan Jordan
news:kjp110539okk4pt7g...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 03:18:04 +0000 (UTC), "Aaron J. Dinkin"
> <din...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> said:
>
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:40:48 GMT, Bob Cunningham
<exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > [Regarding "wanna":]
>
> > > I guess the added "n" may be to keep the reader from wanting
> > > to pronounce it ['weIn@]. But I don't see what keeps the
> > > reader from wanting to pronounce it ['w&n@] until he or she
> > > realizes it's a contraction for "want to" and the
> > > pronunciation is then inherited from that of "want".
>
> > The rules of English spelling do, according to which the default
> > pronunciation for <wanna> is /'wAn@/, not /'w&n@/. A short <a>
that
> > follows a /w/ is almost universally pronounced as though it were a
short
> > <o>, unless it's followed by a velar consonant. This is very
consistent.
> > /A/ is the vowel in "want", "wanton", "wander", "wand", "wan",
"Taiwan",
> > and "swan", not to mention other words in which the following
consonant
> > isn't <n>. And "wanna", too.
>
> But "wack", "wacky", "wacko", "WAC", "WAF", "waff", "waft",
> "wag", "waggle", "wagon", "wamble", "wangle", "wax".
Of those 13, 9 are before a velar consonant (/k/, /g/ or /N/), and so
are not exceptions to Aaron's "rule". I also don't think the rule is
as consistent before labials like /f/ and /m/ as it is before /n/.
> Your "rule" has so many exceptions as to make it useless as
> a strict rule, but it may be useful as a hint at a probable
> pronunciation.
I don't think it was meant as a strict rule - it was meant as a rule
indicating the default pronunciation. That doesn't mean there aren't
exceptions - just that those exceptions are liable to be mispronounced
by someone unfamiliar with them who sees the spellings.
There are exceptions - I gave one, for my speech, in another post -
but this is English spelling we're talking about.
Jonathan
Bob Cunningham
> > > [Regarding "wanna":]
1 2 3 4 5 6
123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
> Of those 13, 9 are before a velar consonant (/k/, /g/ or
> /N/), and so are not exceptions to Aaron's "rule". I also
> don't think the rule is as consistent before labials like
> /f/ and /m/ as it is before /n/.
Okay, I missed the "velar consonant" provision.
> > Your "rule" has so many exceptions as to make it useless as
> > a strict rule, but it may be useful as a hint at a probable
> > pronunciation.
> I don't think it was meant as a strict rule - it was meant as a rule
> indicating the default pronunciation.
But I was responding to Aaron's taking exception to my
remark that someone might want to pronounce "wanna" ['w&n@].
His point was no good so long as there is even one
pronunciation of "wan-" as [w&n].
In order to prove that *no one* would want to pronounce
"wanna" ['w&n@], he would have to cite a rule that says
"wan" is *never* pronounced [w&n].
He indirectly conceded that he was making an invalid point
when he used the words "almost".
Bob Cunningham
Aaron Dinkin, taking exception to my remark to the effect
that someone *might* want to pronounce "wanna" ['w&n@], had
said
A short <a> that follows a /w/ is almost universally
pronounced as though it were a short <o>, unless
it's followed by a velar consonant.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:52:45 GMT, Bob Cunningham
<exw...@earthlink.net> said:
[ . . . ]
> He indirectly conceded that he was making an invalid point
> when he used the words "almost".
Make that either "the word 'almost'" or "the words 'almost
universally'". I was undecided which to say, so I blended
the two.
Aaron J. Dinkin
> "Aaron J. Dinkin" <din...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> news:buq3pc$d2jm$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
>
>> /A/ is the vowel in "want", "wanton", "wander", "wand", "wan",
>> "Taiwan", and "swan", not to mention other words in which the following
>> consonant isn't <n>. And "wanna", too.
>
> It doesn't surprise me that some Americans have the same vowel in
> "Taiwan" as in "swan", but I would have thought that they would be
> FRWB. I have the "cat" vowel, but the "father" vowel wouldn't
> surprise me.
To my surprise, I find that AHD agrees with your expectation in that it
gives a pronunciation of "Taiwan" containing the "father" vowel. I've
always said it with my "cot"="swan" vowel, as I have "Saskatchewan",
"Matawan", "Agawam", and other place names.
Ah well. Foreign words don't have to follow the rules of English spelling.
Aaron J. Dinkin
I haven't found one yet....
> In order to prove that *no one* would want to pronounce
> "wanna" ['w&n@], he would have to cite a rule that says
> "wan" is *never* pronounced [w&n].
I'm not intending to prove that *no one* would want to pronounce "wanna"
as /'w&n@/, only that to do so would be perverse from the perspective of
the general principles of English spelling. You asked what keeps "the
reader" from wanting to pronounce <wanna> with /&/; my answer is, the same
thing that prevents the reader from wanting to use /E/, or /goUti/:
cognizance that there's a rule of English spelling to the effect that it
should have /A/. All rules of English spelling have exceptions, of course;
the reader might second-guess the rule and decide (wrongly) that this word
is one of the exceptions. But that would constitute guessing an
exception: to pronounce <wanna> "as it is spelled" - which is a
reasonably well-defined concept - would be to use /A/.
Ben Zimmer
>
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:52:45 GMT, Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:54:07 -0000, "Jonathan Jordan"
> ><jonatha...@sheffield.ac.uk> said:
> >
> >> I don't think it was meant as a strict rule - it was meant as a rule
> >> indicating the default pronunciation.
> >
> > But I was responding to Aaron's taking exception to my
> > remark that someone might want to pronounce "wanna" ['w&n@].
> > His point was no good so long as there is even one
> > pronunciation of "wan-" as [w&n].
>
> I haven't found one yet....
How would you pronounce the acronym WAN (Wide Area Network)?
Martin Ambuhl
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:52:45 GMT, Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>But I was responding to Aaron's taking exception to my
>>remark that someone might want to pronounce "wanna" ['w&n@].
>>His point was no good so long as there is even one
>>pronunciation of "wan-" as [w&n].
>
> I haven't found one yet....
The closest I can come is some words beginning in <wang> pronounced /w&N/,
but no /w&n/s.
--
Martin Ambuhl
Theodore de Bere
I was carelessly relying on "wangle" for my backup, even
though I pronounce it ['weNgl-] (or ['weINgl-]; I'm not sure
which). It was only after Aaron said "I haven't found one
yet" that it dawned on me that ['w&Ngl-] is not ['w&n gl-].
Thank heaven for Ben Zimmer's "WAN" (Wide-Area Network),
which _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Eleventh
Edition_ pronounces [w&n].
Thank you, Ben.
Aaron J. Dinkin
I have no idea. I've never seen it before, and now I've been thinking
about the issue too much to know how I would pronounce it naturally. If
the first time I saw it in a text was in a context like "LANs and WANs", I'd
probably say /w&n/, but I can't be sure even of that.
Martin Ambuhl
> How would you pronounce the acronym WAN (Wide Area Network)?
I pronounce it "Wide Area Network."
--
Martin Ambuhl
Bob Cunningham
And don't forget "wan" as in Elmer-Fudd-speak: "The wabbit
wan away".
Jack Gavin
Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah!
--
Jack Gavin
Bob Cunningham
<exw...@earthlink.net> said:
[ . . . ]
> And don't forget "wan" as in Elmer-Fudd-speak: "The wabbit
> wan away".
I should have said "The wascally wabbit wan away".
Donna Richoux
Bob Cunningham
WOTFL.
Bob Cunningham
<din...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> said:
[ . . . ]
> to pronounce <wanna> "as it is spelled" - which is a
> reasonably well-defined concept - would be to use /A/.
It's meaningless to use "/A/", because that represents a
phoneme. A phoneme contains all sounds that some listener
perceives to be the same. That is a subjective impression
on the part of the listener, so it will vary from one
listener to another.
Phonemic notation has no place in a discussion of how words
are pronounced.
Raymond S. Wise
Not even with /'SEdjul/ and /'skEdZ@l/, /'fEbr@,wEri/ and /'fEby@,wEri/?
Django Cat
>
> Phonemic notation has no place in a discussion of how words
> are pronounced.
>
Que? What else is it for then? Or do you mean "Spelling has no place in a
Jonathan Jordan
"Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9f4i109ksjoei74ll...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:58:08 +0000 (UTC), "Aaron J. Dinkin"
> <din...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> said:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> > to pronounce <wanna> "as it is spelled" - which is a
> > reasonably well-defined concept - would be to use /A/.
>
> It's meaningless to use "/A/", because that represents a
> phoneme. A phoneme contains all sounds that some listener
> perceives to be the same. That is a subjective impression
> on the part of the listener, so it will vary from one
> listener to another.
Can you give a reference for this definition? It's quite different
from ones I've seen in the past, and it seems to lead to some
absurdities.
For example, I pronounce "horse" and "hoarse" differently, but not
everyone can hear the difference. Your definition would seem to imply
that for people who can't hear the difference, my pronunciations of
these words contain the same vowel phoneme, even though they form a
minimal pair.
On the other hand, a Scottish Gaelic speaker might perceive the two
consonants in many English pronunciations of "lull" to be different,
but most speakers of the English dialects concerned will perceive them
to be the same. Surely my pronunciation of "lull" doesn't suddenly
have different phonemes at the beginning and end just because I'm
talking to someone from South Uist.
I have seen definitions that suggest that a phoneme is a group of
sounds which are perceived as the same by the _speaker_, but this is
quite different in its effect from what you've said above. I'm not
sure that it's quite right either, though.
Jonathan
Django Cat
>
> A phoneme contains all sounds that some listener
> perceives to be the same.
>
Um.... Millions of Spanish people percieve /v/ and /b/ as being the same
phoneme, the same is true for speakers of oriental languages with /l/ &
/r/, of Arabic speakers with /p/ and /b/ and no doubt there are examples
from other languages which most English speakers can't distinguish. A
phoneme is "the smallest unit of sound in a language that can distinguish
two words" - Longman Dict of Applied Linguistics
Django Cat
> That is a subjective impression
> on the part of the listener, so it will vary from one
> listener to another.
>