Difference between revisions 11639569 and 11663765 on enwiki

[[/old talk1]]

-----
#Are the pronunciations in italics and brackets to the right of each word the correct pronunciations, or the mis-pronunciations?  This isn't clear from the text.  Ideally, the article would state first the `correct' pronunciation, followed by a list of mis-pronunciations with indications as to their likely regions (because a lot of the words in the list seem, to me, to be mispronounced only in certain parts of the world, rather than by all Anglophones.  In fact, at the risk o(contracted; show full)ing small or dull, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't encyclopedic. Triviality is relative to the reader, so whereas some obscure topics may seem trivial to some (maybe even this article) they are nonetheless encyclopedic. That's why I said I didn't care whether anyone thought this article was trivial or not, that wasn't why I tagged it. So, do you think I can put the tag back up with that stipulation (mentioned above)?--[[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]] 05:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I promise not to pounce :-). But I'm not sure where you're going with this. Can you give examples of something that is (a) trivial and encyclopedic and (b) something that is trivial and unencyclopedic? I'm unclear how things are divided between being (a) and being (b)? Because, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the implication that you're making is that e.g. Pokemon are (a) but some of the content on this page may be (b), and I'm curious by what criterion you make the distinction. Just so it's clear, it's my belief that there is no difference between (a) and (b) and there's nothing on this page that doesn't warrant being in this encyclopedia. I am, however, perfectly willing to accept that there are those who disagree with me; I just want to understand where they draw the line and ''why''.[[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 06:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)⏎
⏎
== Uranus ==

By what standard is "urinous" a "nonexistant adjective"? It occurs in several dictionaries (cf. www.dictionary.com). It is, however, less familiar than the words "your" and "anus", so I find the second part of the following entry hard to believe without a compelling cite to back it up.

"Most dictionaries list both (1) and (2). (1) is historically the older pronunciation and reflects the first-syllable stress of the original Latin word. It is the only pronunciation given by K&K, and the first pronunciation given by LPD. (2) began as a form of taboo avoidance because (1) sounds like the nonexistant adjective "urinous", but the euphemism was hardly successful as (2) can be homophonous with your anus."

:You're right, "urinous" is a word. It isn't in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate 11th edn. (where I looked in the first place), but it is in Webster's Third New International. As for (2) originating as a way of avoiding the "urinous" sound of (1), I don't have a published source for it; just a personal communication from someone of the generation during which the change took place (about 50-60 years ago). He told me that back then, the word "anus" really wasn't particularly well known among the general population, so pronunciation (2) didn't sound "dirty" until the '60s and '70s, when "anus" became better known. --[[User:Angr|Angr]] 05:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)