@GIVEMEREPLAY: That pretty much occurs in any dialect of any language, not just Australian English. For example, in Japanese the word 'kami' can mean spirit, hair or paper (although their symbols are different).
Australian English (like British English) is a non-rhotic dialect, which means Rs are not pronounced in syllable-final position. In such dialects, "ligger" would be pronounced "ligguh". It might look unusual to most North American speakers, but given this fact the spelling of the second choice makes sense.
Regarding the pronunciation of "Obamer", this is the result of a phenomenon known as "intrusive R" through which superfluous Rs are systematically inserted in specific phonetic environments. This phenomenon is common to (surprise, surprise) non-rhotic dialects.
" @GIVEMEREPLAY: That pretty much occurs in any dialect of any language, not just Australian English. For example, in Japanese the word 'kami' can mean spirit, hair or paper (although their symbols are different).
Check it: American Homophones. The great example given is 'chalk' and 'chock', two words that sound pretty different in Australian English. "
Hold up. Where in America do people say 'chalk' and 'chock' the same? I just checked their American pronunciations on Dictionary.com, and they sounded different -- much like they do in Australia (but more nasally).
I'm also Australian, and this discussion is blowing my mind. "Puh-ligger-null" and "puh-lig-a-nul" are the same.
I've heard people say "polly-go-nal," but never "polly-gonnal." I think puh-ligger-null / puh-lig-a-nul is correct.
Man, I'm honestly just sitting here laughing at what this has turned into. I am so sorry for opening this can of worms, everybody. Well, I say I'm sorry but it's still making me chuckle.
@DreamR said:
" Hold up. Where in America do people say 'chalk' and 'chock' the same? I just checked their American pronunciations on Dictionary.com, and they sounded different -- much like they do in Australia (but more nasally). "
You don't think this sounds very similar to this? In Australia the difference is "chork" and "chock" and they have much more distinction.
@DreamR said:
" I'm also Australian, and this discussion is blowing my mind. "Puh-ligger-null" and "puh-lig-a-nul" are the same. "
I'm with you here. The essence is the same for both, regardless of where you're from. I think JJ got where I was coming from and pretty much answered accordingly without implying that Australians are somehow getting it wrong. Even if you don't agree with the minutiae of what I've offered, I think I at least conveyed the different syllable emphases... didn't I? Maybe I didn't. *confused frown*
@DreamR said:
" I've heard people say "polly-go-nal," but never "polly-gonnal." "
Watch the linked video in my opening post. It's not the first time I've heard it, either.
@HitmanAgent47: What about 'polygonal', though? That's a different word. Although I'm not really asking what the official way is, I guess, rather than being curious about how others say it.
Well I found this at the webster website. You have to allow the activeX content, it won't harm your computer, from a dictionary site. You can hear the pronounciation, it's pull leg gone nal
" @HitmanAgent47: What about 'polygonal', though? That's a different word. Although I'm not really asking what the official way is, I guess, rather than being curious about how others say it. "
Both are on that website, if you'd just click the link Buzz. "
Sorry, I meant for the pronunciation buttony thing, which I saw wasn't there after I'd clicked the link - no need to get tart, ya cheeky thing.
Log in to comment