| From: | Greg <greg@***.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: I'd like to know ... (OT) |
| Date: | Tue, 15 Jul 1997 13:20:02 -0400 |
>On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 13:56:09 +0100 Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
>writes:
>>|You get to be an initiate (pronounced e-ni-she-it) by initiating
>>(long a
>>
>>???? Eh ?????
>>
>>I'll always pronounce it In-ish-ee-ate myself.....
>
>
>Does it really matter? I did look it up (just a moment ago), and while
>I've got the syllables wrong according to the dictionary, that is about
>how I have always pronounced it <shrug> As I said, does it really matter?
>
Well (Here comes a rather pointless little lecture) it sorta depends on
what you mean by "really" mattering. In general the -ate suffix pronounced
Ate is associated with the verb form so the difference between initi-/IT/
(a person who is initiated) and initi-/ate/ (what an initi-/it/ has done)
is the general phonological form. This is not to say that, from a semantic
point of view, your pronunciation is wrong as the only possible judgement
about that is related to your ability to make your meaning understood.
However, it is true that the stanadard form is much more likely to be
understood by the majority of english speakers.
<greg>
theoretical linguistics- live it!
