this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2025
48 points (94.4% liked)

Linguistics Humor

1550 readers
3 users here now

Do you like languages and linguistics ? Here is for having fun about it


For serious linguistics content: !linguistics@mander.xyz


Rules:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_e

Cognitive dissonance on the more accurate name of “Ignored e”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronym_(linguistics)

Record a record? Convict a convict? What an annoying concept.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_leveling

At least irregular verbs are drifting away, that’s a pleasant surprise.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisyllabic_laxing

fotograffy > fuhtawgruhfee I’ll die on this hill

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You know what bugs me the most?

  • island - with a fake etymological "s" that was never pronounced. Compare it with German "Eiland".
  • people - you got to borrow French "peuple", then change that "u" into "o" for cosmetic purposes.
  • chaos - because you got to plop an etymological "h", except conventionally the way to transcribe Greek /kʰ/→/χ/ is "kh" instead. But no, you need to disguise that /k/ as /tʃ/.
  • spamming a diacritic (apostrophe) to highlight elided sounds, but not using it to solve small orthographical quirks. It would solve the first two issues you're complaining about - compare "mate" (bro) with "yerba matë", "I record it" vs. "the recórd".

[/old man screams at the clouds rant]

[–] Shihali@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're about twenty centuries too late on the χ thing. You're gonna need to go back and talk to the Romans.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

[kʰ] or [χ], both end as /k/ [kʰ] in English anyway. But it feels weird that people insist on that etymological ⟨ch⟩ as if "English got it from Latin" was more important than "it's ultimately from Greek".

[–] Shihali@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

It'll be part of the great English spelling reform. Until then, it's going to be spelled the way we Romanized Greek in the 16th century.

[–] Shihali@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

On thinking it over, "proper" spelling of foreign words has done its own share of damage to English spelling. We don't just have to learn our own spelling conventions, we also have to learn foreign ones. Or not (sent to you from Cairo, Illinois, locally pronounced "care-oh")

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 points 1 week ago

Frankly, I agree. I'm perhaps biased because of Italian, but I think etymology doesn't belong to the spelling; a consistent and dialect-agnostic set of rules that allows you to predict how to spell and pronounce a word is far more important.

In special I never understood why English obtusely sticks to the double spelling standard, native (as in /gɪf/) vs. Romance+Classical (as in /dʒɪf/).

Oh I’m in good company, this is my kinda rant 🤙

[–] drspod@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wow, I guess this is like UK schoolhouse rock? Not bad

[–] kaklerbitmap@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think I get the general gist of Morphological Leveling, but I don't understand Ablaut Leveling

[–] bigfondue@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Ablaut is a feature in Indo European languages where the vowel sound of a root changes for different forms of a word. An example from English: "sing" is conjugated to "sang" and "sung". Ablaut leveling would be losing the distinction between the vowels in different forms of the same word.

When we fix the irregular verb sing we will create a new heteronym between singed-as-past-of-sing and singed-as-past-of-singe 🫠