Comment by Aerroon
6 hours ago
Because your pronounce them backwards.
"Loose" is a short word that ends sharply, but "lose" is a long word that slowly peters out.
They should be the other way around imo.
6 hours ago
Because your pronounce them backwards.
"Loose" is a short word that ends sharply, but "lose" is a long word that slowly peters out.
They should be the other way around imo.
If we're allowed to make modifications here then it should really be lose => looze and loose => luce
Luce is already a word in English, if a little obscure
Fun fact — English did not have formalized spelling prior to the printing press
https://www.dictionary.com/articles/printing-press-frozen-sp...
So, technically we are allowed to make modifications! We just can't expect others to adhere to our modifications :)
I think that would make "loosely" not work out. Lucely/lucly catch the hard C there. I'm good with loozing/loozer, looks kind of funny though.
Lucely absolutely does not catch the hard c. Surely there is no word in the English language where "ce" has a hard c, only loanwords like celt.
I would not pronounce lucely with a hard C
Lucezly
1 reply →
This was also the way I felt before I was introduced to "the magic e" (spoiler: it still doesn't make any sense)
https://www.academysimple.com/magic-e-words/
Wow, "magic e" just transported me back to primary school. And I had a little heart flutter fearing that I wouldn't be able to remember/explain it today.
Now that you frame it that way, I'm surprised "lose" didn't evolve to be pronounced like "Lowe's"
I hate discussions like these because then I start reading words in weird ways and then I look at words as a random jumble of letters that don't even seem like words anymore. Is that just me? :)
Loose rhymes with moose, noose, caboose...
Exactly, and we all know those are pronounced mooze, nooze, and cabooze.
Since English has a glut of loaner words, I'd assume the two words just originate from different languages.