Discussion:
Are erupt and irrupt different words?
Add Reply
Dingbat
2017-08-11 00:06:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Are erupt and irrupt different words?

In spoken language, they sound the same. How can one who studies spoken
language tell how many words have a given pronunciation?

In written language, they have the different spellings, but what if one is
not studying the way(s) the language is written?

This piece seems to use irrupt as a pun on erupt:

https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/eruption_irruption.php

An “eruption” goes out, while an “irruption” goes in. Perhaps Douthat was being
subtle, using “irruption” in the invading sense, but wanting the evocation of
an exploding “eruption” as well.
Horace LaBadie
2017-08-11 01:54:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
In spoken language, they sound the same.
Not in my spoken language. Midland Atlantic.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-08-11 03:23:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Dingbat
In spoken language, they sound the same.
Not in my spoken language. Midland Atlantic.
Nor mine.
Dingbat
2017-08-11 03:39:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Dingbat
In spoken language, they sound the same.
Not in my spoken language. Midland Atlantic.
Nor mine.
What is the difference?

They're on a homophones list:
https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/homofone.htm
Peter T. Daniels
2017-08-11 11:41:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Dingbat
In spoken language, they sound the same.
Not in my spoken language. Midland Atlantic.
Nor mine.
What is the difference?
https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/homofone.htm
"Erupt" has /iy/ with minor stress (not reduced to /@/ or /barred-i/), the rare
"irrupt" has /barred-i/, though apparently in RP /@/ and /barred-i/ have merged.
q***@yahoo.com
2017-08-11 14:20:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Dingbat
In spoken language, they sound the same.
Not in my spoken language. Midland Atlantic.
Nor mine.
What is the difference?
https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/homofone.htm
The word 'irruption' is so uncommon that if I were to use it in
speech, I'd force the first syllable to sound like 'ear' so as not to
be misheard.
--
John
Peter T. Daniels
2017-08-11 14:33:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Dingbat
In spoken language, they sound the same.
Not in my spoken language. Midland Atlantic.
Nor mine.
What is the difference?
https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/homofone.htm
The word 'irruption' is so uncommon that if I were to use it in
speech, I'd force the first syllable to sound like 'ear' so as not to
be misheard.
That would definitely be heard as "eruption." You'd need to do the somewhat
unconventional [I] as in "it" to not be misunderstood.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-08-11 17:59:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 07:33:35 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Dingbat
In spoken language, they sound the same.
Not in my spoken language. Midland Atlantic.
Nor mine.
What is the difference?
https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/homofone.htm
The word 'irruption' is so uncommon that if I were to use it in
speech, I'd force the first syllable to sound like 'ear' so as not to
be misheard.
That would definitely be heard as "eruption." You'd need to do the somewhat
unconventional [I] as in "it" to not be misunderstood.
Would that, for you, be the same as in irradiate, irredeemable.
iridescent, irresistible, irresponsible, irrelevant, etc?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-08-11 21:09:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 07:33:35 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Dingbat
In spoken language, they sound the same.
Not in my spoken language. Midland Atlantic.
Nor mine.
What is the difference?
https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/homofone.htm
The word 'irruption' is so uncommon that if I were to use it in
speech, I'd force the first syllable to sound like 'ear' so as not to
be misheard.
That would definitely be heard as "eruption." You'd need to do the somewhat
unconventional [I] as in "it" to not be misunderstood.
Would that, for you, be the same as in irradiate, irredeemable.
iridescent, irresistible, irresponsible, irrelevant, etc?
If one were over-enunciating, it would be, but it's not called for in any of
those words because they don't have e- counterparts to avoid confusion with.
Tony Cooper
2017-08-11 15:32:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Dingbat
In spoken language, they sound the same.
Not in my spoken language. Midland Atlantic.
Nor mine.
What is the difference?
https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/homofone.htm
The word 'irruption' is so uncommon that if I were to use it in
speech, I'd force the first syllable to sound like 'ear' so as not to
be misheard.
Uncommon? So uncommon that I had to look it up. Hearing it, I would
think the speaker meant "eruption".

It's one of those words that if you know it, and know the definition,
you can use it correctly but you stand the chance of using a word that
your listener/reader has never seen before. Not a good idea if
there's a good substitute unless you want to appear to be smarter than
your listener/reader.

The example at MW is "The crowd irrupted in a fervor of patriotism".
Said as "The crowd erupted in a fervor of patriotism" would be
understood by all as the same.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2017-08-11 20:44:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Dingbat
In spoken language, they sound the same.
Not in my spoken language. Midland Atlantic.
Nor mine.
What is the difference?
https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/homofone.htm
The word 'irruption' is so uncommon that if I were to use it in
speech, I'd force the first syllable to sound like 'ear' so as not to
be misheard.
Uncommon? So uncommon that I had to look it up. Hearing it, I would
think the speaker meant "eruption".
It's one of those words that if you know it, and know the definition,
you can use it correctly but you stand the chance of using a word that
your listener/reader has never seen before. Not a good idea if
there's a good substitute unless you want to appear to be smarter than
your listener/reader.
The situation is the opposite among birders, who tend to know that
"irrupt" can be used to mean "come into an area unexpectedly in large
numbers" but not to know that "erupt" can be used for the same event
if it's not from the point of view of view of the area invaded.

When I visit Cleveland in winter, I always hope for an irruption of
Common Redpolls.
Post by Tony Cooper
The example at MW is "The crowd irrupted in a fervor of patriotism".
Said as "The crowd erupted in a fervor of patriotism" would be
understood by all as the same.
That illustrates the sense "3: erupt 1c." I'd say that meaning is a
mistake, unless the crowd irrupted into the enclosure where the
medals were being awarded or some such.
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
2017-08-11 21:57:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:44:37 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Dingbat
In spoken language, they sound the same.
Not in my spoken language. Midland Atlantic.
Nor mine.
What is the difference?
https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/homofone.htm
The word 'irruption' is so uncommon that if I were to use it in
speech, I'd force the first syllable to sound like 'ear' so as not to
be misheard.
Uncommon? So uncommon that I had to look it up. Hearing it, I would
think the speaker meant "eruption".
It's one of those words that if you know it, and know the definition,
you can use it correctly but you stand the chance of using a word that
your listener/reader has never seen before. Not a good idea if
there's a good substitute unless you want to appear to be smarter than
your listener/reader.
The situation is the opposite among birders, who tend to know that
"irrupt" can be used to mean "come into an area unexpectedly in large
numbers" but not to know that "erupt" can be used for the same event
if it's not from the point of view of view of the area invaded.
When I visit Cleveland in winter, I always hope for an irruption of
Common Redpolls.
While "irruption" is not birder jargon, if it's a term that is widely
used by birders, then it's a different kettle of fishhawks. It's when
the birder uses the term outside of his own flock of followers that
the choice is questionable.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2017-08-12 03:22:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:44:37 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by q***@yahoo.com
The word 'irruption' is so uncommon that if I were to use it in
speech, I'd force the first syllable to sound like 'ear' so as not to
be misheard.
Uncommon? So uncommon that I had to look it up. Hearing it, I would
think the speaker meant "eruption".
It's one of those words that if you know it, and know the definition,
you can use it correctly but you stand the chance of using a word that
your listener/reader has never seen before. Not a good idea if
there's a good substitute unless you want to appear to be smarter than
your listener/reader.
The situation is the opposite among birders, who tend to know that
"irrupt" can be used to mean "come into an area unexpectedly in large
numbers" but not to know that "erupt" can be used for the same event
if it's not from the point of view of view of the area invaded.
When I visit Cleveland in winter, I always hope for an irruption of
Common Redpolls.
While "irruption" is not birder jargon, if it's a term that is widely
used by birders, then it's a different kettle of fishhawks. It's when
the birder uses the term outside of his own flock of followers that
the choice is questionable.
Let os prey that birders don't do that. In fact, I think very few would.
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
2017-08-12 05:02:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 21:22:31 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:44:37 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by q***@yahoo.com
The word 'irruption' is so uncommon that if I were to use it in
speech, I'd force the first syllable to sound like 'ear' so as not to
be misheard.
Uncommon? So uncommon that I had to look it up. Hearing it, I would
think the speaker meant "eruption".
It's one of those words that if you know it, and know the definition,
you can use it correctly but you stand the chance of using a word that
your listener/reader has never seen before. Not a good idea if
there's a good substitute unless you want to appear to be smarter than
your listener/reader.
The situation is the opposite among birders, who tend to know that
"irrupt" can be used to mean "come into an area unexpectedly in large
numbers" but not to know that "erupt" can be used for the same event
if it's not from the point of view of view of the area invaded.
When I visit Cleveland in winter, I always hope for an irruption of
Common Redpolls.
While "irruption" is not birder jargon, if it's a term that is widely
used by birders, then it's a different kettle of fishhawks. It's when
the birder uses the term outside of his own flock of followers that
the choice is questionable.
Let os prey that birders don't do that. In fact, I think very few would.
Let's hope their eagle doesn't carry them away. Id would be a bad
idea.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
bill van
2017-08-12 06:43:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:44:37 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by q***@yahoo.com
The word 'irruption' is so uncommon that if I were to use it in
speech, I'd force the first syllable to sound like 'ear' so as not to
be misheard.
Uncommon? So uncommon that I had to look it up. Hearing it, I would
think the speaker meant "eruption".
It's one of those words that if you know it, and know the definition,
you can use it correctly but you stand the chance of using a word that
your listener/reader has never seen before. Not a good idea if
there's a good substitute unless you want to appear to be smarter than
your listener/reader.
The situation is the opposite among birders, who tend to know that
"irrupt" can be used to mean "come into an area unexpectedly in large
numbers" but not to know that "erupt" can be used for the same event
if it's not from the point of view of view of the area invaded.
When I visit Cleveland in winter, I always hope for an irruption of
Common Redpolls.
While "irruption" is not birder jargon, if it's a term that is widely
used by birders, then it's a different kettle of fishhawks. It's when
the birder uses the term outside of his own flock of followers that
the choice is questionable.
Let os prey that birders don't do that. In fact, I think very few would.
I think birders should use their special terms with outsiders and be
prepared to explain if asked. Enrich the language: let it fly.
--
bill
Loading...