Re: OT: Re: Why do people in the UK put a u in the word color?
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 01:12:12PM +0100, Chris Lale wrote:
> Nate Bargmann wrote:
>
> >* Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> [2006 Apr 16 04:13 -0500]:
> >
> >
> >>On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 09:13 +0100, Chris Lale wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Ron Johnson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>And "c" will still be needed for "ch" (as in "church", not the k
> >>>>in school/skool).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Don't forget that the non-US pronunciation of "schedule" is soft
> >>>(sh-edule),
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Well, then pronounce it properly! :)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Then why do I hear Aussies (and some others) pronounce 'idea' as
> >'ide'er', or 'Daytona' as 'Daytoner'?
> >
> >If 'schedule' wasn't meant to be pronounced 'skedule', then there would
> >be no 'c' in it. Don't want to waste a consonant, dontcha know! :)
> >
> >
> 'sch' has its root in German where it is pronounced 'sh', the 'c' being
> silent. When we anglicised the Germanic word 'schule' it became 'school'
> with a 'k', perhaps because people applied English phonetics to a German
> word. Not so with 'schedule'. It just goes to show that in a living
> language there is no one correct set of rules, only different
> traditions. Its just that your tradition isn't as wonderful as mine! :)
I strongly believe that the 'sch' was originally two counds - an s and
a separate ch sound. There's quite a few Germanic languages where
this is so. I suspect that German has lost the distinction, rather
than English acquiring one.
-- hendrik
Reply to: