zompist bboard

jmcd wrote:I think Travis's point is that it is not intended to deceive. I, on the other hand, find it quite plauible.

I was saying that I doubt anyone with half a brain who has a working knowledge of English believes what cunningham claims about his English dialect.

Case in point: Why would moist ever have a nasal vowel? Or why would /s/ > [ç] in any English variety? (The closest thing I can think of is that I have [sʲ] in many consonant clusters, but this still does not sound anything like [ç].) Or why would final /st/ acquire a [j] offglide in moist (not moisture)?

Travis B. wrote:

jmcd wrote:I think Travis's point is that it is not intended to deceive. I, on the other hand, find it quite plauible.

I was saying that I doubt anyone with half a brain who has a working knowledge of English believes what cunningham claims about his English dialect.

Case in point: Why would moist ever have a nasal vowel? Or why would /s/ > [ç] in any English variety? (The closest thing I can think of is that I have [sʲ] in many consonant clusters, but this still does not sound anything like [ç].) Or why would final /st/ acquire a [j] offglide in moist (not moisture)?

I don't believe that transcription, but it's not impossible to imagine reasonable sound changes that would lead to it. Progressive vowel nasalization is a phonetically natural process (although I've never read any descriptions of it occurring in English, where regressive vowel nasalization is much more prominent), and "moist" starts with a nasal consonant. Debuccalization of coda [s] to [h] is also possible: it's a sound change in progress for Spanish and seems to have occurred in French as well. Progressive palatalization assimilation can explain [h] > [ç], and [t] > [tʲ] after a diphthong ending in [i̯]. It's pretty weird to analyze this as a separate segment [j] though.

Cunningham did transcribe "moisture" with [j]: "/mõiçtjœw/." (The presence of the offglide is actually not very believable, since in my experience all North American English speakers use an affricate in this context due to yod coalescence.)

linguoboy wrote:

Travis B. wrote:I was not aware that moist was considered derogatory by anyone until reading the above post, and from googling the word supposedly it is used to derogatorily refer to men as homosexual. IDGI.

This comes as news to this homosexual man. But maybe I'm not the target demographic.

Maybe we're simply not moist enough

What should be done about the word "moist"?

I think this thread should get closed and every instance of the word “moist” used not in its literal meaning should imply a warning from a mod.

For a moment I thought that it said "mob" instead of "mod".
I don't see a reason to close the thread, but I agree with the Pole otherwise.

Sumelic wrote:

Travis B. wrote:

jmcd wrote:I think Travis's point is that it is not intended to deceive. I, on the other hand, find it quite plauible.

I was saying that I doubt anyone with half a brain who has a working knowledge of English believes what cunningham claims about his English dialect.

Case in point: Why would moist ever have a nasal vowel? Or why would /s/ > [ç] in any English variety? (The closest thing I can think of is that I have [sʲ] in many consonant clusters, but this still does not sound anything like [ç].) Or why would final /st/ acquire a [j] offglide in moist (not moisture)?

I don't believe that transcription, but it's not impossible to imagine reasonable sound changes that would lead to it. Progressive vowel nasalization is a phonetically natural process (although I've never read any descriptions of it occurring in English, where regressive vowel nasalization is much more prominent), and "moist" starts with a nasal consonant. Debuccalization of coda [s] to [h] is also possible: it's a sound change in progress for Spanish and seems to have occurred in French as well. Progressive palatalization assimilation can explain [h] > [ç], and [t] > [tʲ] after a diphthong ending in [i̯]. It's pretty weird to analyze this as a separate segment [j] though.

The thing is that nasalization in English varieties is always regressive, I do not know of an English variety that has debuccalization of /s/, and palatalization in English varieties is always regressive. So cunningham claims to not have just one or so phonological processes at work that run counter to how basically all English dialects operate, but a whole range of them, all operating together on the same wordl.

Sumelic wrote:Cunningham did transcribe "moisture" with [j]: "/mõiçtjœw/." (The presence of the offglide is actually not very believable, since in my experience all North American English speakers use an affricate in this context due to yod coalescence.)

This is more plausible because yods have occured in this position in some English dialects, unlike the changes above which basically never occur in any English dialects, even though it still is very odd for a North American English dialect.

Some of you seem a little confused. Let me help.

The word "moist" has been considered by some to be an exceptionally unpleasant word for some reason, enough so to justify news articles about it. I was making a post about its famous unpleasantness in order to make fun of Viktor's thread, and of the ilk of people in general who think they are going to right all the world's wrongs by changing words into other words. It had nothing to do with gays.

By the way, not to be too smug about it, but your reaction (in assuming I was referring to some-or-other slur) kind of proves my own point, doesn't it? It seems to me that the censorious language police have definitively entered Poe's Law territory, if I can't even make a satirical post (about a word people dislike because of "facial feedback" or because it conjures "images of cake and sweaty armpits") without accidentally committing some misdemeanor from the Index Verborum Prohibitorum.

And at least one of you wants to lock the thread as well? Good lord. You people are unbelievable.

The language of the first post made it obvious to me that it was satirical. That doesn't mean that I cannot try to take the subject seriously. Also, Poe's law is so prevalent that it should be taken for granted when posting satire.
People are unbelievable. Perhaps that is we feel the compulsion to study ourselves?

(On the positive side, Xephyr, at least one person, me, found it funny.)

mèþru wrote:The language of the first post made it obvious to me that it was satirical. That doesn't mean that I cannot try to take the subject seriously.

do you understand the POINT OF SATIRE

a modest proposal on the final solution of the autist question

What I mean is that if a person ridicules the complaining about words, that doesn't mean people can't have a serious discussion for the solution to complaints.

have you considered that it would also be possible to have a serious discussion on the validity of the complaints

Yes, that is also an important part of the conversation.

Conjuring up images of cake? Where on earth would one allow such a thing? They don't even have any bread to eat!

jmcd wrote:Conjuring up images of cake? Where on earth would one allow such a thing? They don't even have any bread to eat!

After testing you will be baked, and then there will be cake.

Xephyr wrote:And at least one of you wants to lock the thread as well? Good lord. You people are unbelievable.

Wait, you thought the Pole was being serious?

So that's what it looks like when the master satirist is moistened by his own moutarde.

When it comes to the Pole's posts, I just assume that all interpretations are meant, even the ones that flatly contradict each other.

mèþru wrote:When it comes to the Pole's posts, I just assume that all interpretations are meant, even the ones that flatly contradict each other.

So...he's Garak?

I don't really know much about Star Trek, so I had to rely on the Wikipedia page for the character description. The Pole certainly resembles that description though.

linguoboy wrote:

Xephyr wrote:And at least one of you wants to lock the thread as well? Good lord. You people are unbelievable.

Wait, you thought the Pole was being serious?

So that's what it looks like when the master satirist is moistened by his own moutarde.

There were literally no sarcasm markers in Pole's post.

Of course I was being sarcastic. Honestly, if it were serious, I would demand much more severe punishment for using the M-word…

What was your former signature, the Pole? Something about one cutting themselves? After seeing that, you know that you can't take anything the Pole says 100% seriously. (That was a pretty disturbing signature, and I am glad that you removed it).

Well, there are some times when the Pole is at least relatively serious, but it doesn't happen often.

ObsequiousNewt wrote:There were literally no sarcasm markers in Pole's post.

ProTip: If you are unfamiliar with a particular poster's default posting style, try viewing a few of their other posts before trying to interpret one of them in isolation.

linguoboy wrote:

ObsequiousNewt wrote:There were literally no sarcasm markers in Pole's post.

ProTip: If you are unfamiliar with a particular poster's default posting style, try viewing a few of their other posts before trying to interpret one of them in isolation.

Lack of sarcasm markers is not a reason to assume sincerity, but it is a reason to be unsure. I personally was inclined to believe that Pole was sarcastic—it would have been much more in line with what I expected from him—but I believe that you were incorrect in chiding Cev for being unsure.