homoiophone
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
English
[edit]Alternative forms
[edit]Etymology
[edit]From homoi- (“similar”) + -o- + -phone (“sound”).
Pronunciation
[edit]- (Received Pronunciation) enPR: hŏmoiʹəfōn, IPA(key): /hɒˈmɔɪəfəʊn/
Noun
[edit]homoiophone (plural homoiophones)
- A word similar — but not identical — in pronunciation with another; compare homeograph and homophone.
- 1886: Stephen Denison Peet [ed.], The American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal, volume 8, page 349 (Jameson & Morse)
- This was through the existence of homophones and homoiophones in a language, of words with the same or similar sounds, but with diverse significations.
- 1893: Johan Harold Josua Lindahl, Description of a Skull of Megalonyx Leidyi, page 56 (American Philosophical Society)
- This was through the existence of homophones and homoiophones, that is, of words with different meanings but the same or nearly the same sound.
- 1911, July 6th: Robert Seymour Bridges, Correspondence of Robert Bridges and Henry Bradley, 1900–1923, page 81 (The Clarendon Press)
- Have you any idea as to what ought to be done with what I believe you pepel call homophones or homoiophones. I hope that is not the right name for them. But is it not foolish to have an educated nation that refuses to readjust such inconveniences?
- 1924, American Oriental Society, Journal of the American Oriental Society, volume 44, page 28:
- By way of bringing this intricate and tedious dissertation to an end, allow me to recite a short specimen of the thing itself — a Siamese “jaw-breaker” which, for ingenious bewilderment by means of homoiophones, I am sure does not fall behind our “Theophilus Thistle the Thistle-sifter,” while in coloratura of intonation it certainly leaves that far behind.
- 1987, Alan Allport, editor, Language Perception and Production: Relationships Between Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing, Academic Press, →ISBN, page 237, →ISBN:
- Another explanation relates to the actual use of homophony-generating rules; perhaps pseudohomophones are not homophones but rather ‘homoiophones’, that is, phonologically similar but not exactly equal to their word mates.
- 1886: Stephen Denison Peet [ed.], The American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal, volume 8, page 349 (Jameson & Morse)