Zompist Bboard Again

axolotl wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 1:11 pm An interesting malapropism in a YouTube video description -

"I do not own this song, nor the image. I am fully complacent with any requests made to remove this video..."

Thank you, that seriously improved my mood.

I just noticed this, because both words appeared in the same Metafilter post, from two different people:

cronch (for crunch)
monch (for munch)

Both applied to dogs. Interesting sound symbolism here... usually a more open vowel is less cute, not more so.

zompist wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:47 pm I just noticed this, because both words appeared in the same Metafilter post, from two different people:

cronch (for crunch)
monch (for munch)

Both applied to dogs. Interesting sound symbolism here... usually a more open vowel is less cute, not more so.

I think ‘more open’ isn’t necessarily correct… in my dialect this would be cr[ɐ]nch vs cr[ɔ]nch. But I’m not even sure it’s supposed to be sound-symbolic, as much as ‘weird spellings are cute’.

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 7:57 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:47 pm I just noticed this, because both words appeared in the same Metafilter post, from two different people:

cronch (for crunch)
monch (for munch)

Both applied to dogs. Interesting sound symbolism here... usually a more open vowel is less cute, not more so.

I think ‘more open’ isn’t necessarily correct… in my dialect this would be cr[ɐ]nch vs cr[ɔ]nch. But I’m not even sure it’s supposed to be sound-symbolic, as much as ‘weird spellings are cute’.

In the dialect here it's cr[ʌ]nch versus cr[ɒ]nch, thanks to the NCVS.

zompist wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:47 pm I just noticed this, because both words appeared in the same Metafilter post, from two different people:
cronch (for crunch)
monch (for munch)
Both applied to dogs. Interesting sound symbolism here... usually a more open vowel is less cute, not more so.

Yeah, it's a thing. I'm pretty sure it's intended to evoke the more bouba -and less kiki- cuteness of the dog: besides the fact that most dog vocalization that aren't outright barking sounds like owowowuouuwowrouwrorwuooworowuorwouow (much like english does ), the dog has an awkward, overly-enthusiastic, silly, more endearing than adorable, more blundering than precious, sort of loveliness.

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 7:57 pmI think ‘more open’ isn’t necessarily correct… in my dialect this would be cr[ɐ]nch vs cr[ɔ]nch. But I’m not even sure it’s supposed to be sound-symbolic, as much as ‘weird spellings are cute’.

there is some of that, but not any mispelling would have this aesthetic effect: kruntsch, for example, would not do.

From a post by hwhatting in Ephemera; emphasis added by me:

hwhatting wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 11:08 amSo there's another anecdata point that in France, it's really worse than in other developed countries.

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 11:19 am From a post by hwhatting in Ephemera; emphasis added by me:

hwhatting wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 11:08 amSo there's another anecdata point that in France, it's really worse than in other developed countries.

I see ‘anecdata’ reasonably often.

I'd never heard it, but I immediately understood it. I was assuming it was facetious.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 6:16 pm I see ‘anecdata’ reasonably often.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 7:09 pm I'd never heard it, but I immediately understood it. I was assuming it was facetious.

Yes, in my experience it's both reasonably frequent and still mostly used facetiously, as it is here as well.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 7:09 pm I'd never heard it, but I immediately understood it. I was assuming it was facetious.

Same.

Same to me. A transparent portmanteau of anecdote and data.

I've been told of on multiple occasions and by multiple people for referring to the round things composed of large grains usually made with chocolate chips as "cookies" instead of "biscuits" because thats what i typically asscoiate with america (i still refer to other things which have a finer composition and smoother surface as "biscuits"). Also i could be really controversial and refer to the "anzac biscuit" as an "anzac cookie" because it looks like one but i don't do this.

zompist wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:47 pm I just noticed this, because both words appeared in the same Metafilter post, from two different people:

cronch (for crunch)
monch (for munch)

Both applied to dogs. Interesting sound symbolism here... usually a more open vowel is less cute, not more so.

Replacing vowels with o or oo to make words "silly" has been a thing on the internet for a long time. It might be partially motivated by the visual appearance of the letter O, rather than the sound.

Some examples, with the dates of earliest attestation I can find:

2006: Floof (fluff)
2007: Woll Smoth (Will Smith)
2010: Hoovy (Heavy) and Scoot (Scout)
2014: Spooder (spider)
2015: Smol (small)
2019: Chonky (chunky)

vlad wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 7:41 am Replacing vowels with o or oo to make words "silly" has been a thing on the internet for a long time. It might be partially motivated by the visual appearance of the letter O, rather than the sound.

That's possible; many of these examples probably aren't intended to be spoken. And for me at least, "smol" and "small" would sound alike anyway. It's also been a longstanding meme that cats can write, but not spell.

Hmm, is "floof" pronounced [fluf] or [flʊf]?

zompist wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 2:42 pm It's also been a longstanding meme that cats can write, but not spell.

I don't think they are very good at syntax or morphology either, as evidenced by "I can has Cheezburger?"

zompist wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 2:42 pm Hmm, is "floof" pronounced [fluf] or [flʊf]?

To me it can be either.

zompist wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 2:42 pm Hmm, is "floof" pronounced [fluf] or [flʊf]?

The former for me, but then I also say [huf] and [ruf].

[fluːf], [hʊf], [ruːf] for me. I wouldn't have predicted the existence of [flʊf]. Are there people who say [bʊf] for "boof", [fʊf] for "foof", [pʊf] for "poof", or [lʊfə] for "loofah"?

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 7:53 pm Are there people who say [bʊf] for "boof", [fʊf] for "foof", [pʊf] for "poof", or [lʊfə] for "loofah"?

Don’t know about ‘boof’ or ‘loofah’, bot the other two are standard in my speech.

(I even have an elderly relative who searches things up on G/ʊ/gle!)

I have [ʁʷˤuf] (but will accept [ʁʷˤʊf]), [hʊf], [pʰuf], [ˈʟ̞ufə(ː)]. I have never heard boof or foof in the wild.