• @tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    347 months ago

    I’ll tell the agile fragile fugitive gin-drinking giraffes eating ginger ginseng to imagine gingerly using their digits to engineer a geological survey of the gist of your comment. They ate too much gingerbread and now have gingivitis, so the margins of those attracted to religion aren’t as rigid as the original origins of those of that region and we have to remain vigilant lest magic supersede logic, which of course would be terrible for legislation of the legions.

    • @towerful@programming.dev
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      117 months ago

      Great.
      However none of those have the g-i-f sequence and have the j sound.
      They do have g-i-t sequences. So it suggests that the f makes the g pronounced like a g not a j.
      Intact, you could use examples like “digit” to argue the versioning software should be pronounced jit.

      • @tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        97 months ago

        However none of those have the g-i-f sequence and have the j sound.

        So the criteria for pronunciation is other words that have the exact same letters? What does that mean for the pronunciation of “women”?

        • @towerful@programming.dev
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          37 months ago

          Women Vs world? Women Vs Woo? Women Vs work? Women Vs wonder?

          Cause the “wom” sequence would be…
          Women Vs Womb?
          Women Vs Wombat?

          The arguement is obviously nonsense.
          It’s going into syntax of words to get pronunciation, instead the acronym/name.
          Which is funny, because that’s exactly what’s happening in the gif/jif argument.