And the “r” in khaki. And what the hell colour is it? A light shade of brown with a yellowish tinge, or a shade of green known in the US as olive drab? I can’t keep up.
What a fine kettle of ghoti!
(“gh” as in “enough”, “o” as in “women”, “ti” as in “nation”)
[whispers] I used to pronounce that “whores d overs”. [/w]
“gh” is only pronounced “f” at the end of a word, as in “enough” or “slough”.
Or plough or sleigh or weigh or though, which we all know are pronounced “ploff”, “sleiff”, “weiff”, and “thoff”. English is easy when you know the rules.
A very interesting read in the Atlantic; the site paywalls but I think you can read some articles for free.
I’ve never heard an R in khaki. It’s a Hindi word that is pronounced more or less like it is in Hindi [kʰaki]
And it means “dust-colored.”
If you reverse-engineer “khaki” from a Boston accent, it’s the implement that lets you start your automobile. That has an R in it.
It’s . . . complicated. But it is a thing. Something that "left"tenant would probably say. I’m going to say I heard it in a WWII movie that had Brits, Canadians and probable some Aussies in it.
Here’s some idle chatter and speculation on the web. I googled “khaki with an r sound”.
I always heard it pronounced with an “r” growing up. And yes, light brown, not green.
That Boston pronunciation is known specifically for not having Rs in it. It’s a non-rhotic accent. If the Rs are dropped, then by definition there are no R sounds. The transcription would be [kaki]. Note the absence of any symbol representing a rhotic consonant.
I said REVERSE-engineer. A Bostonian who says “khaki” is talking about a caR key.
I hate having to explain my jokes. It doesn’t do 'em any good.
Yo! Back to the topic, please.
They are trying to coup the thread with linguistics.
Ah, got it. So it is a coupe after all.
Disregard my earlier post.
Nothing to see here.
Holy shit, what a Powerball of crazy that Axios story is – not surprising at all. In fact, there was a disillusioned never Trump GOP operative who, months before the election, predicted that Trump might use the DHS to take possession of voting machines or boxes of ballots. It seemed like a misdirected effort at Hollywood script writing, but he apparently knew what he was talking about.
The NYTimes take on that meeting was a little more restained:
(I’m citing a post because it quotes the salient parts typically hidden behind the NYT paywall.)
“Yes.”
In my opinion, the sedition against John Adams was worse. Alexander Hamilton, according to at least one historian I’ve read, thought seriously about removing Adams from office. I believe those days were worse, and a greater danger, than the events of January '21.