GalacticCactus Forum
Forums => English & Linguistics => Topic started by: saxon75 on July 20, 2009, 06:02:08 PM
-
A lot of people, myself included, have a tendency of slurring over certain final consonants, as exemplified by the title of this thread. I find that I often say "would joo," keeping "would" and the vowel part of "you" as normal but slipping on the Y.
I'm curious: what's this phenomenon called in linguistic terms? And is this something that's likely to become a permanent feature of the language over time, or is it more regional?
-
1. I don't know how to do proper lists at GC.
2. I don't know the answers to either of your questions.
3. I suspect it's been happening almost since the beginning of language. Heck, birds probably even do it.
4. It probably makes things really hard on adult learners of new languages.
5. It's probably the main reason we will eventually become telepathic.
-
A lot of people, myself included, have a tendency of slurring over certain final consonants, as exemplified by the title of this thread. I find that I often say "would joo," keeping "would" and the vowel part of "you" as normal but slipping on the Y.
I'm curious: what's this phenomenon called in linguistic terms? And is this something that's likely to become a permanent feature of the language over time, or is it more regional?
That particular phenomenon really has nothing to do with it being a final consonant. It's simply the combination of /d/ followed by /j/, which causes the /d/ to palatalize to /d?/. The same sound change can happen anywhere in a word, I believe.
I'm a little confused by your second question. Are you talking about the pronunciation of "wouldja" in particular? It's certainly possible that it could become a permanent feature, but I don't think the question of whether it's regional is really relevant. Something can become a permanent regional feature, or it could spread over the whole language.
-
I just mean that I think that, currently, there are very few people, if any, who would consider that pronunciation to be correct, despite the fact that it's perfectly understandable. Like, nobody, hearing "Would you," would correct the person saying, "No, it's pronounced 'wouldja.'" I was just wondering if that's something that might change.
I had a psych prof in college who claimed that some day "nucular" would become the standard pronunciation of the word "nuclear." I don't know if that's true or not, but it seems like an analogous scenario.
Anyway, is there no specific linguistic term for this example of palatalization? And what about the combination of /t/ followed by /j/ becoming /t?/? To me these seem like examples of the same phenomenon.
-
Even if both of those become the standard pronunciations, that's a far cry from having the current standard pronunciations be considered incorrect.
-
I'm pretty sure that there are English words whose pronunciations have changed to the point where the original standard pronunciations would now be considered incorrect. I could be wrong though--I certainly can't think of any off the top of my head.
-
3. I suspect it's been happening almost since the beginning of language. Heck, birds probably even do it.
Bees do it. Even educated fleas do it.
-
For some reason I feel like the ignorant and ineducated fleas would be more prone to this than the enlightened fleas. Just a thought...
-
I'm pretty sure that there are English words whose pronunciations have changed to the point where the original standard pronunciations would now be considered incorrect. I could be wrong though--I certainly can't think of any off the top of my head.
From what I understand "knight" didn't used to have silent letters. They were all pronounced, the "k", the "g", the whole lot of them.
-
And what about the combination of /t/ followed by /j/ becoming /t?/? To me these seem like examples of the same phenomenon.
You betcha they are!
-
I'm pretty sure that there are English words whose pronunciations have changed to the point where the original standard pronunciations would now be considered incorrect. I could be wrong though--I certainly can't think of any off the top of my head.
Sure, but that's a process that took centuries, right?
-
Forte?
-
Sure, but that's a process that took centuries, right?
I don't know, though that certainly seems plausible. I suspect that this phenomenon I'm asking about has been around for a long time, too, though.
-
I just mean that I think that, currently, there are very few people, if any, who would consider that pronunciation to be correct, despite the fact that it's perfectly understandable. Like, nobody, hearing "Would you," would correct the person saying, "No, it's pronounced 'wouldja.'" I was just wondering if that's something that might change.
I suppose it's possible, but it seems unlikely to me. For one thing, this example occurs at a word boundary, so the change only happens with that particular pair of words, and for another thing it mostly occurs in rapid or casual speech, not in all speech. Though it wouldn't be surprising if /dj/ became /d?/ within words.
Anyway, is there no specific linguistic term for this example of palatalization? And what about the combination of /t/ followed by /j/ becoming /t?/? To me these seem like examples of the same phenomenon.
I don't think there's a term for that specific example. Usually terms for sound changes refer to classes of sound changes, like voicing or gliding or frication, rather than particular changes like /dj/ > /d?/. You could also call this change affrication, which refers to the manner of articular of the new sound, whereas palatalization refers to the place of articulation. But maybe you already knew that.
-
I'm pretty sure that there are English words whose pronunciations have changed to the point where the original standard pronunciations would now be considered incorrect. I could be wrong though--I certainly can't think of any off the top of my head.
If you go back far enough, virtually every word in the language has changed this much. Though I suppose that if you go back too far, you wouldn't be talking about English anymore but rather about West Germanic or Proto-Indo-European or something.
-
Forte?
There are still plenty of people who insist that forte should rhyme with fort. I think they're a dying breed, though.
-
Yes, but I don't think it took "centuries."
See the pronounciation note: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forte (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forte)
-
I think you're right. I've heard that most of the Great Vowel Shift happened in only two or three generations.