>tfw a word has the perfect sonority for what you want to

Use it anyway. Why not?

>>8344570
Very quirky post, my friend. Upvoted.

>>8344570
>when it's also the only rhyme you can think of

Write it in IPA

>>8344903
you do know you're not getting a first-summer medal for this right

Meme it into the usage you want, friend.

>>8344570
>sonority

That's not the word you want

That feel means you are an incapable writer. Words are not 'sonorous': when a word or phrase is phonetically pleasing, that is only because the idea or sequence of ideas it represents are pleasing, and seem inseparable from that word or phrase. Creative writing can never be mere music, just as music can never be mere poetry. The fundamental skill is eloquence, which is the fitting of idea to sound, and never the other way around. Anybody can pick out a word they think sounds nice. Phonetics are a loser's game.

>>8345074
>when a word or phrase is phonetically pleasing, that is only because the idea or sequence of ideas it represents are pleasing
But that is entirely wrong.

>>8345074
So you can't find a word from a foreign language beautiful without knowing its concept, which is actually the sole source of its beauty?

Retarded.

>>8345074
Well, I guess I'm quite one to talk about capability in writing, since I just made a real stupid mistake: I meant, the fitting of sound to idea, never the other way around.

>>8345069
>not understanding the meta-ness of the post

>>8345074
I find fault with this fickle fellow's fulsome fucking philippic against phonetics.

File: 1453628298606.jpg (96KB, 1024x569px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1024x569px

>>8345150
S you want the most fitting sound to be used for an idea instead of the most fitting idea for a sound? Aside from priority sorting in artificial language situations, what are you even complaining about?

>>8344570
that pic is subtle, only schizos can tickle themselves

File: tumblr_inline_mwmtynqxVT1sn58ql.png (83KB, 240x200px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 240x200px

>>8345175

>>understanding
>>meta-ness

>>8345286
not entirely true
yes in the sense of full on tickling but not mildly

>>8345175
>not understanding the meta-ness of the post of the post

e.g.?

File: Screen shot 2016-07-31 at 9.11.21 PM.png (51KB, 765x260px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 765x260px

>>8345074
>Words are not 'sonorous'

sense 3

>>8344584
>>8345517
If they don't even understand accepted secondary meanings of a word, why would you be able to sell a new one...

>>8344570

fuck your rules

>>8345074
>tells others they are incapable writers
>can't write well

>>8345469
>not understanding post-meta-ness