Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jthanson t1_j16fpkz wrote

Reply to comment by earthcaretaker315 in Next to the manger at Capitol Campus by LoudLemming

As a matter of fact, you could. For example, you could have used the word "have" instead of the incorrect homophone "of."

8

earthcaretaker315 t1_j19jhoi wrote

Your use of homophone doesn't apply here.

homophone

noun

ho·​mo·​phone ˈhä-mə-ˌfōn ˈhō-

1

grammar : one of two or more words pronounced alike but different in meaning or derivation or spelling (such as the words to, too, and two)

2

: a character or group of characters pronounced the same as another character or group

1

jthanson t1_j19qly8 wrote

Although I appreciate your pedantry, the use of homophone is appropriate here. Although “have” and “of” are not homophones when pronounced correctly, they are indistinguishable in colloquial speech, especially in American English. The incorrect usage of “of” in place of “have” is a phenomenon of auditory language experience. In that respect, it is homophony that is to blame.

1

firephoto t1_j1aqdk8 wrote

Is it pedantry to point out something can't be corrected unless the meaning was already understood? Oh, and what is language for.. oh...

0