Iain
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:08 am
Post subject: Re: we're = were |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
| Quote: | Iain wrote:
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
Iain wrote:
Pete wrote:
Does "we're" sound exactly as "were"? Ex. We're late. It reads just
as "Were late". Right?
Only if you're extrapolating from text. "Were" rhymed with "Beer" to
the original spellers.
So the bear had a beer in his paw might be painful?
I'm convinced there must have been something a bit different about how
the two words sounded,
I was just punning around with what if "were" and "beer" sounded the
same, which they don't to me, and therefore, say, "beer" was pronounced
like "bur", which does rhyme in my speech with "were", the "bur" being
something that might get stuck painfully in a paw rather than being put
to lips and drained with some salted nuts.
but only for the rationale behind writing at
that time. I would guess offhand maybe somewhere Bear sounded slightly
bisyllabic but I don't know who knows what.
I don't here that with "bear". I think it's a diphthong, or some sort of
connected vowel or vowels. I think that "we're" is closer to two
syllables in my speech. "Were" is not.
|
Hyyyyyyes but you wouldn't would you, being modern man? I was talking
about whatever reason we have two spellings for "bear" and "beer" even
though they once sounded the same. My guess is they didn't sound quite
the same back when it was first spelt and that we have inherited an
exaggeration of that difference.
~Iain |
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:42 am
Post subject: Re: we're = were |
|
|
Iain wrote:
| Quote: | Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
Iain wrote:
[...]
I don't here that with "bear". I think it's a diphthong, or some
sort of connected vowel or vowels. I think that "we're" is closer
to
two syllables in my speech. "Were" is not.
Hyyyyyyes but you wouldn't would you, being modern man? I was
talking
about whatever reason we have two spellings for "bear" and "beer"
even
though they once sounded the same. My guess is they didn't sound
quite
the same back when it was first spelt and that we have inherited an
exaggeration of that difference.
|
My intuition, based on no strong evidence, is that these spelling
variants may point to differing pronunciations in the past more often
than we generally recognise. Of course it's very confused, with our
habit of writing in one dialect and pronouncing in another, and lack
of standardisation in a barely official language, and all that; but I
always incline to the view that the ancestors probably weren't
stupid, so their spellings probably have something to tell us.
For "bear" and "beer" in particular, I understand, even without
calling in evidence modern dialects, that such very recent heroes as
Dan'l Boone often even _wrote_ "bar" for the mammal. The case on that
one therefore seems open and shut.
--
Mike. |
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in