• @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          161 month ago

          Man the english language makes no sense.

          the sound in lose is the same sound as we are taught “oo” makes.

          Couldn’t a more straightforward language be chosen as the global one ffs

          • Flying Squid
            link
            111 month ago

            My father (who had a PhD in English) used to tell me that “ghoti” was pronounced “fish”

            GH as in rouGH
            O as in wOmen
            TI as in raTIon

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              31 month ago

              How do you pronounce women? When I put those sounds together it makes more of a fush or fosh than fish .

              Or do you say fish different than me?

              • Flying Squid
                link
                111 month ago

                “Wih-men.” I think you’re thinking of woman, the singular version of the word.

            • Dr. Bluefall
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 month ago

              That isn’t really consistent with English orthography.

              But you can write “pfysche”, and that would be consistent with English.

          • @Nutteman
            link
            51 month ago

            Looks like we can thank the Dutch language for that one

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              61 month ago

              Looks like loose is from Germanic/Old Norse, “laus”

              And lose is from Old English, “los”

              Also looks like I can’t stand to look at either of these words for a few day now.

              • @Nutteman
                link
                21 month ago

                From my tiny amount of research eventually it passed through the Dutch layer and ended up as “loose” from those origin points before being adopted into english

          • @vxx
            link
            3
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            There’s also loose and they sound the same but mean different things.

            Loose is when your pants is too wide.

            Lose is when the pants were so wide that you lost them.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              5
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Lucy’s loose legwear lost latitude, leisurely lowering, leaving Lucy’s legs largely liberated. Lamentably, Lucy’s lost leggings landed listlessly, loitering lifelessly.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

              Man looking a thesaurus is fun Lol

            • @MutilationWave
              link
              2
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              They don’t sound the same at all though.

              Lose - looze

              Loose - luice

              • @vxx
                link
                2
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Interesting, I didn’t know that. FYI, there’s the phonetic transcription that saves us from using other words to describe a pronunciation.

                luːz - lose

                luːs - loose

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 month ago

              I think they sound different, loose ends with a curt “s” sound, while lose ends with a longer “z” sound.

              • Jojo, Lady of the West
                link
                fedilink
                11 month ago

                Ooh, also its accent, this is not a thing couplet for me

                Discount, viscount, load and broad,
                Toward, to forward, to reward,

                Nor it’s immediate predecessor,

                Banquet is not nearly parquet,
                Which exactly rhymes with khaki.

                Parquet isn’t in my vocabulary, but doesn’t seem to rhyme with khaki in any common dialect either way.

    • @phoneymouse
      link
      81 month ago

      It would open up a senate seat dems don’t want to lose

    • Flying Squid
      link
      4
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      When I was a kid, Scholastic did a “kids pick the president” poll. It was 1984 and John Glenn was running. I voted for him because he was an astronaut and The Right Stuff had come out a year before so I also thought he was basically Ed Harris. (I was 7.)

      Jesse Jackson won. I was disappointed at the time. I’m not a fan of Jackson’s, but I’d still have taken him over 4 more years of Reagan.

    • nifty
      link
      3
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Yeah, but maybe one day President Kelly? He seems like a interesting person, though I don’t know all of his policy stances