<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Waverley</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/waverley/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/waverley</link>
	<description>Language in a word</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:06:06 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Martin Ball</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/waverley/comment-page-1#comment-19513</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Ball</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:43:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/?p=315#comment-19513</guid>
		<description>This problem of how to capture regional pronunciations via an unwieldy orthographic system crops up often, of course. I always wonder what &quot;luv&quot; is supposed to represent when used in fiction. For me, it&#039;s [lʌv], but that&#039;s how the standard varieties pronounce &quot;love&quot; anyway. So, maybe it&#039;s meant to be [lʊv], but it&#039;s often put in the mouths of Londoners (or at least southerners), so that makes no sense. I suspect it&#039;s just to suggest the speaker can&#039;t spell very well!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This problem of how to capture regional pronunciations via an unwieldy orthographic system crops up often, of course. I always wonder what &#8220;luv&#8221; is supposed to represent when used in fiction. For me, it&#8217;s [lʌv], but that&#8217;s how the standard varieties pronounce &#8220;love&#8221; anyway. So, maybe it&#8217;s meant to be [lʊv], but it&#8217;s often put in the mouths of Londoners (or at least southerners), so that makes no sense. I suspect it&#8217;s just to suggest the speaker can&#8217;t spell very well!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

