The rest of the message, ie that I pronounce the "inform" in
"information" as if it were "infirm", or that I don't pronounce
the
"know" in "acknowledged" the same way I pronounce the "know"
in "know"
(more like "gnaw" - "acgnawledged"), or for that matter the
"know"
in "knowledge" the same as "know" when it's by itself...
Often, a morpheme (whether it's a morpheme any longer or a
sub-morpheme is debatable) is spelt identically but pronounced
differently in different words....... so "reknowned" does not seem at
all illogical to me.
Mark
On 28/05/05, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
if you break it down - "re - known - ed" - it makes perfect sense
Well, you see, it doesn't make sense to me because it's not pronounced
like "known".
I'm not as much of a prescriptivist as my previous message might make it
seem. I do accept language evolution and I do accept changes in grammar
and spelling. My previous message was not meant to belittle those who
do not know the contents of dictionaries by heart. I certainly don't.
It's just that I think I have acquired somewhat of a language intuition
and even so, I find it difficult to understand the thought process that
would lead one to think that there should be a k in that word. Once
someone came up with it, I can understand that other people might follow
it, thinking it might be the correct spelling. But the thoughts of that
first person are beyond me.
Timwi
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE