"us" for "me" and "f" for "th" in the UK
Marc
us a go" = "Let me have a turn.") Are there any historical reasons?
I'd expect to find a British dialect that uses "her" for "their,"
since this has a clear OE precedent, but "us" for "me"? It doesn't
make sense.
Ditto "f" for "th" (especially in London).
Thanks,
Marc
Brian M. Scott
<marc....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:dde4a941-ad58-486d...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> Why do the Brits use "us" instead of "me" in informal
> speech? [...]
> Ditto "f" for "th" (especially in London).
That's a rather common substitution, especially
word-finally, by no means limited to England, let alone
London.
Brian
Marc
> That's a rather common substitution, especially
> word-finally, by no means limited to England, let alone
> London.
In London (certain parts of London?) they say "fanks" for "thanks," "I
fink" for "I think," and so on. It's very noticeable.
Marc
Richard Herring
<087d9820-1ef7-4629...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Marc
<marc....@gmail.com> writes
--
Richard Herring
Marc
> In message
> <087d9820-1ef7-4629-8bfd-7e3a8b881...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Marc
> <marc.ad...@gmail.com> writes>On Apr 30, 9:01 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> >> That's a rather common substitution, especially
> >> word-finally, by no means limited to England, let alone
> >> London.
>
> >In London (certain parts of London?) they say "fanks" for "thanks," "I
> >fink" for "I think," and so on. It's very noticeable.
>
> You talk kinda funny too.
So no one knows where this pronunciation comes from, then? Or the "us"
for "me" thing either?
Marc
Brian M. Scott
<marc....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:9793a83e-6c0a-4a2c...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
I don't think that it 'comes from' anywhere. It's an easily
demonstrated fact that [f] and [T] sound very similar (e.g.,
check the Google archives for Peter's café/Cathay story),
and cross-linguistically [T] is, I believe, relatively
uncommon; substitution of [f] is therefore hardly very
surprising.
[...]
Brian
Patrick Karl
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:19:40 -0700 (PDT), Marc
> <marc....@gmail.com> wrote in
> <news:9793a83e-6c0a-4a2c...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
> I don't think that it 'comes from' anywhere. It's an easily
> demonstrated fact that [f] and [T] sound very similar (e.g.,
> check the Google archives for Peter's café/Cathay story),
> and cross-linguistically [T] is, I believe, relatively
> uncommon; substitution of [f] is therefore hardly very
> surprising.
Another example seems to be the Russian name transliterated as "Fyodor";
it comes from the Greek Theodore.
Heidi Graw
>"Marc" <marc....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:dde4a941-ad58-486d...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Why do the Brits use "us" instead of "me" in informal speech? ("Give
> us a go" = "Let me have a turn.") Are there any historical reasons?
This may have something to do with the Monarchy and how
a Monarch speaks using the plural form.
So, if you wish to put on airs about yourself and place
a great importance upon your person, then you would
use "us" and "we" instead of "me" and "I."
Usually, when someone wants to step in after having
watched a fool try numerous times to accomplish something,
one might step up to the plate and say, "Let us have a go."
It is used in a teasing manner to indicate one's superiority.
> I'd expect to find a British dialect that uses "her" for "their,"
> since this has a clear OE precedent, but "us" for "me"? It doesn't
> make sense.
>
> Ditto "f" for "th" (especially in London).
Did you notice this mostly used among younger people...age
30 and under? If you've mostly noticed it for the under 20
crowd, it may be baby-talk assumed on purpose to irritate
the older crowd. If you noticed it used mostly by young
women, it may be their way of demonstrating a kind of
immature helplessness.
Take care,
Heidi... We like our bubble baf after our hard day at work. ;-)
>
> Thanks,
> Marc
Trond Engen
It's just one of those things that happens to sounds. You've already got
the answer that it's quite widespread in English. It happened in Russian
(Fyodor, Timofey) recently enough for the letter <th> to be preserved up
to the revolution, and IIRC it's one of the possible routes for Latin f-
< *dh-.
> Or the "us" for "me" thing either?
Isn't that a normal thing everywhere? A polite inclusive or something?
In Norwegian it's been mocked as a "royal we" or a "me and my worm" --
and I think it used to be more widespread earlier. I think I use it in
simple expressions like 'la oss se' "let us (me) see", and to add
emphasis to pronouncements of some (quasi-)monumentality: 'Vi får vel
komme oss av gårde' "We (I) should be going", 'Vi fikk vel som fortjent'
"We (I) must have got what we (I) deserved".
--
Trond Engen
- worming up
Brian M. Scott
<jpk...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:fvdkme$6dk$1...@registered.motzarella.org> in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
And quite a few others of this type, now that you mention
it, among them <Feofan> (masc.) and <Feofana> ~ <Feofanija>
(fem.), <Feofilakt>, <Feofil>, and <Feodosija>, all of which
have been used.
Brian
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> On Thu, 01 May 2008 18:45:17 -0500, Patrick Karl
> <jpk...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <news:fvdkme$6dk$1...@registered.motzarella.org> in sci.lang:
>
> > Brian M. Scott wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:19:40 -0700 (PDT), Marc
> >> <news:9793a83e-6c0a-4a2c...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
> >> in sci.lang:
> >>> So no one knows where this pronunciation comes from, then?
> >> I don't think that it 'comes from' anywhere. It's an easily
> >> demonstrated fact that [f] and [T] sound very similar (e.g.,
> >> check the Google archives for Peter's café/Cathay story),
> >> and cross-linguistically [T] is, I believe, relatively
> >> uncommon; substitution of [f] is therefore hardly very
> >> surprising.
> > Another example seems to be the Russian name
> > transliterated as "Fyodor"; it comes from the Greek
> > Theodore.
>
> And quite a few others of this type, now that you mention
> it, among them <Feofan> (masc.) and <Feofana> ~ <Feofanija>
> (fem.), <Feofilakt>, <Feofil>, and <Feodosija>, all of which
> have been used.
>
> Brian
Not to mention "arifmetika" and "orfografiya", though most commonly
Russian seems to reflect Gk /th/ as /t/: aptekar', matematika,
teodolit, etc.
Ross Clark
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> Why do the Brits use "us" instead of "me" in informal speech? ("Give
> us a go" = "Let me have a turn.") Are there any historical reasons?
What does "we" mean in "what do we have here"?
> I'd expect to find a British dialect that uses "her" for "their,"
> since this has a clear OE precedent, but "us" for "me"? It doesn't
> make sense.
>
> Ditto "f" for "th" (especially in London).
In every context? I find it difficult to imagine that anyone
pronounces mythical as miffickle.
John Atkinson
>> > Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> >> Marc > >> <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> So no one knows where this pronunciation comes from, then?
>> >> I don't think that it 'comes from' anywhere. It's an easily
>> >> demonstrated fact that [f] and [T] sound very similar (e.g.,
>> >> check the Google archives for Peter's café/Cathay story),
>> >> and cross-linguistically [T] is, I believe, relatively
>> >> uncommon; substitution of [f] is therefore hardly very
>> >> surprising.
>> > Another example seems to be the Russian name
>> > transliterated as "Fyodor"; it comes from the Greek
>> > Theodore.
>
>> And quite a few others of this type, now that you mention
>> it, among them <Feofan> (masc.) and <Feofana> ~ <Feofanija>
>> (fem.), <Feofilakt>, <Feofil>, and <Feodosija>, all of which
>> have been used.
> Not to mention "arifmetika" and "orfografiya", though most commonly
> Russian seems to reflect Gk /th/ as /t/: aptekar', matematika,
> teodolit, etc.
Mostly, it depends on how they reached Russian. Fyodor etc come
directly from Byzantine Greek, via Old Church Slavonic. Matematika and
teolodit were borrowed from western European languages (presumably
French), in which <th> was already pronounced [t].
I'm not sure whether this explanation applies to "arifmetic", which
hardly seems a religious word.
Of course, the Russian situation is quite different to the English one.
In Cockney, [T, D] > [f, v] is a sound change in a single language --
pre-Cockney, like other English dialects, had [T, D]. Slavic, however,
never had [T], but did have [f] (though only as an allophone of /v/) --
so it was a case of adapting the pronunciation of foreign words so
monoglot speakers could say them.
"Us" (pronounced [@s]) for nonemphatic "me" is widespread and quite old
in rightpondian English (including Australian). TH fronting is
restricted to London, at least until very recently (the last few
decades, with the rise of Estuary English). So they're hardly
comparable phenomena.
John.
John Atkinson
> Marc skreiv:
>
[...]
>
>> Or the "us" for "me" thing either?
>
> Isn't that a normal thing everywhere? A polite inclusive or something?
It's not that in my dialect.
> In Norwegian it's been mocked as a "royal we" or a "me and my worm" --
> and I think it used to be more widespread earlier. I think I use it in
> simple expressions like 'la oss se' "let us (me) see", and to add
> emphasis to pronouncements of some (quasi-)monumentality: 'Vi får vel
> komme oss av gårde' "We (I) should be going", 'Vi fikk vel som
> fortjent' "We (I) must have got what we (I) deserved".
"We" for "I" in English would be very marked, and would, like you say,
probably be a case of "royal we". "Us" for "me", however, is almost
standard in nonemphatic contexts, like your "let us see".
John.
John Atkinson
>
>>"Marc" <marc....@gmail.com> wrote...
>> Why do the Brits use "us" instead of "me" in informal speech? ("Give
>> us a go" = "Let me have a turn.") Are there any historical reasons?
>
> This may have something to do with the Monarchy and how
> a Monarch speaks using the plural form.
>
> So, if you wish to put on airs about yourself and place
> a great importance upon your person, then you would
> use "us" and "we" instead of "me" and "I."
>
> Usually, when someone wants to step in after having
> watched a fool try numerous times to accomplish something,
> one might step up to the plate and say, "Let us have a go."
> It is used in a teasing manner to indicate one's superiority.
Not so in British English (see my reply to Trond)
[...]
>> Ditto "f" for "th" (especially in London).
>
> Did you notice this mostly used among younger people...age
> 30 and under? If you've mostly noticed it for the under 20
> crowd, it may be baby-talk assumed on purpose to irritate
> the older crowd. If you noticed it used mostly by young
> women, it may be their way of demonstrating a kind of
> immature helplessness.
No, it's standard (broad) Cockney. Its recent spread among (mainly)
younger speakers elsewhere in southern England is because they consider
the Cockney accent prestigious in some sense. The same motive seems to
be behind the adoption of features of black English by non-blacks,
especially young people, in America.
Certainly nothing at all to do with "demonstrating a kind of immature
helplessness". More likely, "a kind of working-class cool" (among both
men and women).
John.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> "Trond Engen" <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote...
"Almost standard"?? Not for me anyway.
But since I have no feel for this variety (it's not part of any
register of mine, and I notice it only occasionally on TV etc), can we
try to establish the facts a little more precisely? OED Online has
just two citations, the earlier from 1828, one "give us" and the other
"tell us". All the examples seem to be datives in the double-object
construction. Is it restricted to this? Can you so replace "me" as
object of a simple transitive? What about objects of prepositions?
Ross Clark
Peter T. Daniels
Marc
> I don't think that it 'comes from' anywhere. It's an easily
> demonstrated fact that [f] and [T] sound very similar (e.g.,
> check the Google archives for Peter's café/Cathay story),
> and cross-linguistically [T] is, I believe, relatively
> uncommon; substitution of [f] is therefore hardly very
> surprising.
[f] and [T] may be similar-sounding, but going from "similar-sounding"
to allophonic is a pretty big leap. [m] and [n] are also similar-
sounding. Wouldn't you be surprised to hear someone say [nemi] for
"many"?
What I'm asking about is whether there is evidence of, say, some
Scandinavian tribe settled in the region where [T] is realized as [f],
which indeed didn't have [T] as part of their phonemic stock, and
therefore (like the Russians with Greek), used [f] for [T].
Just saying "well, they sound real similar" doesn't explain anything.
Marc
Brian M. Scott
<marc....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:647efe9b-cbdd-4e14...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> On May 1, 6:41 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> I don't think that it 'comes from' anywhere. It's an easily
>> demonstrated fact that [f] and [T] sound very similar (e.g.,
>> check the Google archives for Peter's café/Cathay story),
>> and cross-linguistically [T] is, I believe, relatively
>> uncommon; substitution of [f] is therefore hardly very
>> surprising.
> [f] and [T] may be similar-sounding, but going from
> "similar-sounding" to allophonic is a pretty big leap.
Did you bother to check the story?
> [m] and [n] are also similar-sounding.
I don't know whether they are as easily confused as [f] and
[T], but I suspect not.
> Wouldn't you be surprised to hear someone say [nemi] for
> "many"?
Irrelevant. No one is suggesting that [T] and [f] are
*interchanged*.
> What I'm asking about is whether there is evidence of,
> say, some Scandinavian tribe settled in the region where
> [T] is realized as [f], which indeed didn't have [T] as
> part of their phonemic stock, and therefore (like the
> Russians with Greek), used [f] for [T].
No, there isn't, and no, that isn't what you've been asking.
> Just saying "well, they sound real similar" doesn't
> explain anything.
Whether it does or not, it isn't all that I said.
Marc
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What does "we" mean in "what do we have here"?
Well, it's "we" as in "me" and "you" - you're holding/doing something,
and I come upon this situation.
"Give us a go" is different - it's "me instead of you."
> In every context? I find it difficult to imagine that anyone
> pronounces mythical as miffickle.
That's an interesting point (and reminds me of Clive Holes' discussion
of dialectal realization of MSA words/phrases in his fantastic book
"Arabic - Structures, Functions, and Varieties"), and while "mythical"
might actually become "miffickle," I think a higher-register example
would serve you better - say, "theological." I don't think they'd say
"feological." But who knows.
Marc
Heidi Graw
> On May 1, 9:33 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> What does "we" mean in "what do we have here"?
>
> Well, it's "we" as in "me" and "you" - you're holding/doing something,
> and I come upon this situation.
>
> "Give us a go" is different - it's "me instead of you."
>
>> In every context? I find it difficult to imagine that anyone
>> pronounces mythical as miffickle.
>Marc wrote:
> That's an interesting point (and reminds me of Clive Holes' discussion
> of dialectal realization of MSA words/phrases in his fantastic book
> "Arabic - Structures, Functions, and Varieties"), and while "mythical"
> might actually become "miffickle," I think a higher-register example
> would serve you better - say, "theological." I don't think they'd say
> "feological." But who knows.
I'm inclined to believe that "mythical" would be pronounced as
"mytical," and "theological" as "teological." I'm thinking of people
whose first language does not include the "th" sound and who are
trying to learn it. I'm finding those who have loose dentures
tend to use a "t" sound instead of the "th." The "f" sound could
be problematic, too. At least the "t" sound allows one to use
ones tongue to keep the dentures in place. ;-)
Heidi
Arne Dehli Halvorsen
Would one hear "paffe'ic" for "pathetic"?
Arne
>
> Marc
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> On May 1, 9:33 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What does "we" mean in "what do we have here"?
>
> Well, it's "we" as in "me" and "you" - you're holding/doing something,
> and I come upon this situation.
It could be, but it could also be part of a monologue with just one
speaker wondering to himself. To me it seems like a kind of imagined
collectivity, even if there aren't actual other people present.
>
> "Give us a go" is different - it's "me instead of you."
Or could be "me and my mates instead of you".
> > In every context? I find it difficult to imagine that anyone
> > pronounces mythical as miffickle.
>
> That's an interesting point (and reminds me of Clive Holes' discussion
> of dialectal realization of MSA words/phrases in his fantastic book
> "Arabic - Structures, Functions, and Varieties"), and while "mythical"
> might actually become "miffickle," I think a higher-register example
> would serve you better - say, "theological." I don't think they'd say
> "feological." But who knows.
Is it a failure of imagination that so many people here are resorting
to _a priori_ linguistics here? "They couldn't possibly say this",
"I'm sure they don't say that...."
The fact is that there are varieties of English in which /T/ is
replaced by /f/ (and /D/ by /v/). There is no known explanation of
this in terms of a foreign substrate or anything like that. However,
[T] and [D] are highly marked sounds (relatively rare in the world's
languages), and simplification of the phonology by eliminating them
is not that surprising. [f] and [v] are phonetically next door. We've
had examples given of the same substitution in language contact
situations. (I've heard it from Samoans with limited English.)
Now the varieties of English in which this /T D/ > /f v/ substitution
takes place are hardly prestigeous, in fact they are associated with
lower class speakers. Maybe some of these people don't even have words
like "mythical" and "theological" in their vocabulary. If they were to
acquire some education and start adding such words, maybe they would
at the same time be modifying their phonology to include /T/ and /D/.
But even if they did, they would retain their ability to use the lower-
prestige variety when appropriate, and on such occasions there is no
reason why they should not say "miffical" or "feological". ("Pathetic"
is hardly a learned word, so why not "paffe'ic"?)
Ross Clark
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>What I'm asking about is whether there is evidence of, say, some
>Scandinavian tribe settled in the region where [T] is realized as [f],
>which indeed didn't have [T] as part of their phonemic stock, and
>therefore (like the Russians with Greek), used [f] for [T].
>
>Just saying "well, they sound real similar" doesn't explain anything.
Also because elsewhere, the substitution is nearly always [T] > [s]:
many modern Arabic dialects, Ashkenazi Hebrew and Yiddish, American
Spanish, many crippled pronunciations of English like Dungish,
Gerlish, etc.
The only other case know is Scottish/Irish Gaelic, where the spelling
<th> suggests an earlier /T/, which is now silent, perhaps via an
intermediate [f] or [h]? F and h can be confused, as show many Spanish
and Portuguese loan words from Arabic.
--
Ruud Harmsen
http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
<arne...@online.no>: in sci.lang:
>>> In every context? I find it difficult to imagine that anyone
>>> pronounces mythical as miffickle.
>>
>> That's an interesting point (and reminds me of Clive Holes' discussion
>> of dialectal realization of MSA words/phrases in his fantastic book
>> "Arabic - Structures, Functions, and Varieties"), and while "mythical"
>> might actually become "miffickle," I think a higher-register example
>> would serve you better - say, "theological." I don't think they'd say
>> "feological." But who knows.
>
>Would one hear "paffe'ic" for "pathetic"?
FWIW, I once heard a Swiss German replace /k/ by [kX] even in some
learned word from Latin. Unfortunately, I can't remember which. But it
wasn't a native German word. Something like Kchonferenz, maybe.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
> Thu, 1 May 2008 21:28:19 -0700 (PDT): Marc <marc.ad...@gmail.com>: in
> sci.lang:
>
> >What I'm asking about is whether there is evidence of, say, some
> >Scandinavian tribe settled in the region where [T] is realized as [f],
> >which indeed didn't have [T] as part of their phonemic stock, and
> >therefore (like the Russians with Greek), used [f] for [T].
>
> >Just saying "well, they sound real similar" doesn't explain anything.
>
> Also because elsewhere, the substitution is nearly always [T] > [s]:
> many modern Arabic dialects, Ashkenazi Hebrew and Yiddish, American
> Spanish, many crippled pronunciations of English like Dungish,
> Gerlish, etc.
Except Canadian French English where /T D/ > /t d/. And Samoans use
[fv], too, though you may have to take my word for this.
>
> The only other case know is Scottish/Irish Gaelic, where the spelling
> <th> suggests an earlier /T/, which is now silent, perhaps via an
> intermediate [f] or [h]? F and h can be confused, as show many Spanish
> and Portuguese loan words from Arabic.
Proto-Oceanic *t > f quite regularly in Rotuman, which makes some
phonetic sense if you suppose *t > *T > f
Ross Clark
Craoi...@gmail.com
Especially noting vat lots of us who unfortunately need to learn ve
damned lingo against our will find vose two sounds difficult to
reproduce, and would vus much prefer to acquire a variety of English
which allows us to substitute easier sounds for vem wivout sounding
too obviously non-native. If vat substitution becomes legitimate in
higher registers due to ve spread of Cockney accent outside its
original demesne, I heartily applaud vat as a definite step in ve
right direction.
I tend to fink, actually, vat [T] and [D] aren't vat common phonemes
as languages go (of course vey are probably more common as allophones
of [t] and [d]).
Richard Herring
<9793a83e-6c0a-4a2c...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
Marc <marc....@gmail.com> writes
Sam Weller had a bilabial for /v/, which may be related to th-fronting.
>Or the "us"
>for "me" thing either?
>
Why are you lumping these two quite different phenomena together?
--
Richard Herring
Richard Herring
writes
>
>>"Marc" <marc....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:89333e7b-1be2-42f9...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 1, 9:33 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What does "we" mean in "what do we have here"?
>>
>> Well, it's "we" as in "me" and "you" - you're holding/doing something,
>> and I come upon this situation.
>>
>> "Give us a go" is different - it's "me instead of you."
>>
>>> In every context? I find it difficult to imagine that anyone
>>> pronounces mythical as miffickle.
>
>>Marc wrote:
>> That's an interesting point (and reminds me of Clive Holes' discussion
>> of dialectal realization of MSA words/phrases in his fantastic book
>> "Arabic - Structures, Functions, and Varieties"), and while "mythical"
>> might actually become "miffickle," I think a higher-register example
>> would serve you better - say, "theological." I don't think they'd say
>> "feological." But who knows.
>
>I'm inclined to believe that "mythical" would be pronounced as
>"mytical," and "theological" as "teological."
Your inclination is askew.
>I'm thinking of people
>whose first language does not include the "th" sound and who are
>trying to learn it.
Why? We're discussing native-English speakers in south-eastern England.
> I'm finding those who have loose dentures
>tend to use a "t" sound instead of the "th." The "f" sound could
>be problematic, too. At least the "t" sound allows one to use
>ones tongue to keep the dentures in place. ;-)
And why exactly do you think [f] is described as labiodental?
--
Richard Herring
Marc
> Would one hear "paffe'ic" for "pathetic"?
If that's a glottal stop, then yes.
Marc
Marc
> Or could be "me and my mates instead of you".
It isn't, though. It's just "me." If you haven't heard the usage it
might be difficult to imagine, but it's definitely singular.
> languages), and simplification of the phonology by eliminating them
> is not that surprising. [f] and [v] are phonetically next door. We've
The problem is, they aren't hard for native speakers. Why eliminate
them? Native speakers certainly aren't thinking, "these sounds are
highly marked, so let's 'simplify' them." They were never complex to
begin with.
> had examples given of the same substitution in language contact
> situations. (I've heard it from Samoans with limited English.)
Right, and all the examples until now have been of people without it
in their phonemic stock replacing [T] with something else. That's all
well and good. But I'm talking about native speakers.
> like "mythical" and "theological" in their vocabulary. If they were to
Yes they do. See the other post about this dialect gaining prestige
lately.
Marc
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> On May 2, 2:28 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Or could be "me and my mates instead of you".
>
> It isn't, though. It's just "me." If you haven't heard the usage it
> might be difficult to imagine, but it's definitely singular.
I have heard the usage, of course. I take it you are not actually a
speaker of this variety. So what you are saying is that you have heard/
seen it used in a situation where only a singular reading is possible.
I'm willing to believe you. However, with the above example, you
appeared to be trying to argue that, even out of context, it required
a singular reading. I was just pointing out that it was not so.
> > languages), and simplification of the phonology by eliminating them
> > is not that surprising. [f] and [v] are phonetically next door. We've
>
> The problem is, they aren't hard for native speakers.
Why eliminate them? Native speakers certainly aren't thinking, "these
sounds are
> highly marked, so let's 'simplify' them." They were never complex to
> begin with.
No speech sound is hard for native speakers, in the sense that they do
learn to produce them. However, evidence of various kinds suggests
that some sounds are more complex or difficult than others, and there
is some developmental evidence that such "marked" sounds are mastered
later by children than the "unmarked" ones.
>
> > had examples given of the same substitution in language contact
> > situations. (I've heard it from Samoans with limited English.)
>
> Right, and all the examples until now have been of people without it
> in their phonemic stock replacing [T] with something else. That's all
> well and good. But I'm talking about native speakers.
You would seem to have a problem explaining why native speakers should
ever change their sound system in any way.
Admittedly we are a long way from a fully satisfactory theory of why
sound changes take place when and where they do. But it is undeniable
that they do take place. And we can make some generalizations about
typical patterns. And this would be one of them. If they were
replacing /t/ by /m/, that would be a real mystery.
> > like "mythical" and "theological" in their vocabulary. If they were to
>
> Yes they do. See the other post about this dialect gaining prestige
> lately.
>
Fine. Which fricative do you think they use in these words?
Ross Clark
benl...@ihug.co.nz
It also looks like a plausible intermediate stage in PIE *dh > Latin
f.
Ross Clark
Christian Weisgerber
> > Also because elsewhere, the substitution is nearly always [T] > [s]:
> > many modern Arabic dialects, Ashkenazi Hebrew and Yiddish, American
> > Spanish, many crippled pronunciations of English like Dungish,
> > Gerlish, etc.
>
> Except Canadian French English where /T D/ > /t d/. And Samoans use
> [fv], too, though you may have to take my word for this.
When I recently watched the "West 10 LDN" pilot on BBC3, I noticed
that the characters variously pronounced "thief" as /fif/ or /tif/.
As has been mentioned, [T] > [f] is Cockney, and I think [T] > [t]
is associated with some recent (Caribbean?) immigrant communities.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Peter T. Daniels
that would be because people who would be likely to use the word
"theological" probably passed through Public School and had it beaten
out of them.
I have told many times here about when I was in the queue for the
Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge (which has the most bizarre opening
hours), and in front of me in the line was a new student (it was late
October, so I suppose he'd been up there a month or so)escorting his
Cockney-speaking parents, and they were beaming so broadly at his posh
accent!
Peter T. Daniels
> Would one hear "paffe'ic" for "pathetic"?
Certainly.
Peter T. Daniels
> On May 1, 6:41 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> > I don't think that it 'comes from' anywhere. It's an easily
> > demonstrated fact that [f] and [T] sound very similar (e.g.,
> > check the Google archives for Peter's café/Cathay story),
> > and cross-linguistically [T] is, I believe, relatively
> > uncommon; substitution of [f] is therefore hardly very
> > surprising.
>
> [f] and [T] may be similar-sounding, but going from "similar-sounding"
> to allophonic is a pretty big leap.
It is not "allophonic"; there is no free variation or complementary
distribution between [f] and [T].
It is absolute: /T/ is [f] everywhere ([T] and [f] are acoustically
nearly indistinguishable).
Michael Urban
Marc <marc....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 30, 9:01 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>> That's a rather common substitution, especially
>> word-finally, by no means limited to England, let alone
>> London.
>
>In London (certain parts of London?) they say "fanks" for "thanks," "I
>fink" for "I think," and so on. It's very noticeable.
>
I have heard this particular dialect, apparently much more widespread
in recent years, referred to as "estuary English" - you might want
to search for information using that phrase.
Emungo
>
> This may have something to do with the Monarchy and how
> a Monarch speaks using the plural form.
>
> So, if you wish to put on airs about yourself and place
> a great importance upon your person, then you would
> use "us" and "we" instead of "me" and "I."
>
> Usually, when someone wants to step in after having
> watched a fool try numerous times to accomplish something,
> one might step up to the plate and say, "Let us have a go."
> It is used in a teasing manner to indicate one's superiority.
Since no-one else seems to have responded to this interesting but
untenable theory, let me just assure you that the slightest
acquaintance with the idiom in use would convince you it has nothing
to do with the regal / authorial first person plural. Just because in
popular mythology the Queen uses a Royal 'we' (though in fact the only
context in which she does so still is that of written instruments such
as letters patent and other ultra-formal texts prepared for her
signature or seal) it does not mean that British people of all classes
nurse a pretender-to-the-throne complex, in which their subdued belief
in their own royalty bursts out in ungoverned pronoun use. I love the
idea, though.
You really need to get to grips with the whole dialect and register
context of the usage. There is nothing, repeat nothing, grandiloquent
or superior about "gissajob", for instance. I can't offer an account
of how it came about, except to say that it doesn't seem paralleled in
the nominative form - i.e. people who say "us" for "me" don't say "we"
for "I". But possessive pronouns do seem to be covered: "our"
sometimes = "my" - I would not be at all surprised to hear "gi' us
back our gear" said by an individual with reference only to himself.
Recalling Army days I tend rather vaguely, and paradoxically, to
associate the usage with those who did another interesting thing with
pronouns, i.e. creating the second person plural "yous" when
addressing more than one. This is odd, because this usage seems to
arise from a close awareness of number, whereas use of "us" = "me"
would imply the opposite.
> > Ditto "f" for "th" (especially in London).
>
> Did you notice this mostly used among younger people...age
> 30 and under? If you've mostly noticed it for the under 20
> crowd, it may be baby-talk assumed on purpose to irritate
> the older crowd. If you noticed it used mostly by young
> women, it may be their way of demonstrating a kind of
> immature helplessness.
But "Fings Aint Wot They Used To Be" was a (cloyingly nostalgic)
musical about Cockney life from 1960 and as you'll se from the later
discussion there are enough analogues from other contexts to suggest
that the sound change in question is not babyspeak.
John Atkinson
> Marc <marc....@gmail.com> writes
>>On May 1, 3:58 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>> Marc <marc.ad...@gmail.com> writes
>>> >On Apr 30, 9:01 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> That's a rather common substitution, especially
>>> >> word-finally, by no means limited to England, let alone
>>> >> London.
>>>
>>> >In London (certain parts of London?) they say "fanks" for "thanks,"
>>> >"I
>>> >fink" for "I think," and so on. It's very noticeable.
>>>
>>> You talk kinda funny too.
>>
>>So no one knows where this pronunciation comes from, then?
>
> Sam Weller had a bilabial for /v/, which may be related to
> th-fronting.
This was apparently typical of early to mid nineteenth century Cockney,
but doesn't occur at all now. Sam Weller, IIRC, _didn't_ have TH
Fronting.
John.
John Atkinson
> On May 2, 3:01 pm, "John Atkinson" <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> "Trond Engen" <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote...
>> > Marc skreiv:
>> >> Or the "us" for "me" thing either?
>
>> > Isn't that a normal thing everywhere? A polite inclusive or
>> > something?
>
>> It's not that in my dialect.
>
>> > In Norwegian it's been mocked as a "royal we" or a "me and my
>> > worm" --
>> > and I think it used to be more widespread earlier. I think I use it
>> > in
>> > simple expressions like 'la oss se' "let us (me) see", and to add
>> > emphasis to pronouncements of some (quasi-)monumentality: 'Vi får
>> > vel
>> > komme oss av gårde' "We (I) should be going", 'Vi fikk vel som
>> > fortjent' "We (I) must have got what we (I) deserved".
>
>> "We" for "I" in English would be very marked, and would, like you
>> say,
>> probably be a case of "royal we". "Us" for "me", however, is almost
>> standard in nonemphatic contexts, like your "let us see".
> "Almost standard"?? Not for me anyway.
> But since I have no feel for this variety (it's not part of any
> register of mine, and I notice it only occasionally on TV etc), can we
> try to establish the facts a little more precisely? OED Online has
> just two citations, the earlier from 1828, one "give us" and the other
> "tell us". All the examples seem to be datives in the double-object
> construction. Is it restricted to this? Can you so replace "me" as
> object of a simple transitive? What about objects of prepositions?
I think so. "You lost us there" and "Give it to us" and "He took it
from us" sound fine to me. However, some other prepositions seem less
likely -- though, as usual, my acceptability organ starts to degrade as
soon as I use for more than a few minutes.
Ross Clark
John Atkinson
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote...
Except when it's [T].
Wells (Accents of English) says:
"Even the broadest-speaking Cockneys clearly have /T/ and /D/ as items
in their (underlying) phonemic inventory. But for the broader speakers
underlying /T,D/ are subject to the *variable* rule of TH Fronting,
leading to their *frequent* realisation as [f,v] (etc.) [My emphases,
*...*]
"If [T] and [f] were stylistic alternatives realising the same
underlying phoneme /f/ in all cases, we should have frequent
hypercorrections such as *[TAIv] or [TAID] _five_ [, but] such
hypercorrections are virtually unknown. Beaken (1970) found that by the
age of nine children were able to alternate [f] and [T], [v] and [D] in
the appropriate stylistic way for underlying /T,D/, without using
hypercorrect dentals for underlying /f,v/."
I think this means that there _is_ "free variation", but _not_
"complementary distribution" -- i.e., variation occurs in the same
speaker, but isn't governed by phonetic environment.
> ([T] and [f] are acoustically nearly indistinguishable).
I find them clearly distinguishable. Just possibly, this is due to me
having learned to pay attention to them as a child, because of the
traditional Australian attitude to "bloody poms"and the way they speak.
John.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 12:28 am, Marc <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 1, 6:41 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> >> > I don't think that it 'comes from' anywhere. It's an easily
> >> > demonstrated fact that [f] and [T] sound very similar (e.g.,
> >> > check the Google archives for Peter's café/Cathay story),
> >> > and cross-linguistically [T] is, I believe, relatively
> >> > uncommon; substitution of [f] is therefore hardly very
> > > surprising.
>
> >> [f] and [T] may be similar-sounding, but going from
> >> "similar-sounding"
> >> to allophonic is a pretty big leap.
> > It is not "allophonic"; there is no free variation or complementary
> > distribution between [f] and [T].
> > It is absolute: /T/ is [f] everywhere
>
> Except when it's [T].
>
> Wells (Accents of English) says:
(Written nearly 30 years, or ~2 speaker-generations, ago)
> "Even the broadest-speaking Cockneys clearly have /T/ and /D/ as items
> in their (underlying) phonemic inventory. But for the broader speakers
> underlying /T,D/ are subject to the *variable* rule of TH Fronting,
> leading to their *frequent* realisation as [f,v] (etc.) [My emphases,
> *...*]
Is he using the term "variable rule" in the technical sociolinguistic
sense? If so, then there must be studies of the conditioning of it.
> "If [T] and [f] were stylistic alternatives realising the same
> underlying phoneme /f/ in all cases, we should have frequent
> hypercorrections such as *[TAIv] or [TAID] _five_ [, but] such
> hypercorrections are virtually unknown. Beaken (1970) found that by the
> age of nine children were able to alternate [f] and [T], [v] and [D] in
> the appropriate stylistic way for underlying /T,D/, without using
> hypercorrect dentals for underlying /f,v/."
No one has suggested that /f/ and /T/ have merged.
> I think this means that there _is_ "free variation", but _not_
> "complementary distribution" -- i.e., variation occurs in the same
> speaker, but isn't governed by phonetic environment.
If it's a "variable rule," then it's sociolinguistically governed; but
he may not have meant that.
> > ([T] and [f] are acoustically nearly indistinguishable).
>
> I find them clearly distinguishable. Just possibly, this is due to me
> having learned to pay attention to them as a child, because of the
> traditional Australian attitude to "bloody poms"and the way they speak.
Perform Howie Aronson's experiment. Turn your back, say the name of
the local Chinese restaurant, have your class write it down, and see
how many students wrote "Cathay Mandarin," how many wrote "Cafe
Mandarin," and whether that varies depending on which you actually
said.
Neil Coffey
>> Ditto "f" for "th" (especially in London).
>
> In every context? I find it difficult to imagine that anyone
> pronounces mythical as miffickle.
Stuart-Smith & Timmins give some statistics or incidence of [f]
for /T/ (and other realisations) in different word positions in
Glasgow English:
http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESLL/EngLang/phonetics/STU.pdf
Although the incidence of [f] is lower in word-medial position, it
definitely occurs.
Neil
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>On May 2, 2:28 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Or could be "me and my mates instead of you".
>
>It isn't, though. It's just "me." If you haven't heard the usage it
>might be difficult to imagine, but it's definitely singular.
"GIve us a kiss". No mates involved, normally.
Ruud Harmsen
Weisgerber): in sci.lang:
>When I recently watched the "West 10 LDN" pilot on BBC3, I noticed
>that the characters variously pronounced "thief" as /fif/ or /tif/.
>As has been mentioned, [T] > [f] is Cockney, and I think [T] > [t]
>is associated with some recent (Caribbean?) immigrant communities.
Irish English has [th] for /T/. (Dental [t] of course, as opposed to
what they use for /t/).
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>I have told many times here about when I was in the queue for the
>Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge [...]
It's interesting to see that you, being a native speaker, use the verb
"to tell" without an indirect object here, in other words you don't
implicitly mention to whom you told that. Is it because the "here"
more of less replaces an implicit indirect object like "you guys here
in sci.lang"?
Or is there a difference between what is grammatically allowed with
"tell about" and "tell that"?
Examples made up by me:
"I explained ([to] them) that this and that happened the other day."
"I mentioned (to them) that this and that happened the other day."
"I told (them) that this and that happened the other day."
In my view, in the third example, the "them" is obligatory in English;
in the other two, due to the different verbs, it is optional.
This differs from Dutch (cognate verb "vertellen") and German
("erzählen") where the indirect object is optional with these verbs
too.
I ask because I was reading a recent Dutch book the last couple of
weeks (yes, I do sometimes read paper books! (;-|) ), containing
letters by Dutch author G.K. van het Reve (a.k.a. Gerard Reve) to
fellow Dutch author W.F. Hermans and vice versa.
There was a period (around my birth year 1955) when Reve consistently
wrote his letters to WFH in English, as practice because after a few
books in Dutch, he wanted to continue as an English-language author.
He wrote "The Acrobat and other stories" and "Gossamer" in that
period. Allegedly, they were corrected by a native speaker of English
before publication, and had to be.
There are several places in the English letters where I see notable
Dutchisms and incorrect English. Of course, there may be some that I
missed because English isn't my first language either, and there may
be some that are in fact correct because I am oversuspicious about
this issue.
Examples from that book of letters, page 118, about a visit to Reve's
then publisher Geert van Oorschot:
"Geert told that there was a quarrel going on in 'de boezem van het
Parool' about Gompert's article, and that Frans Goedhart had sent you
a praising letter."
"Geert told that during his absence your father came at his office
with a book in which 16 pages were missing (I forgot which book) and
[...]".
When backtranslated to Dutch, this sounds perfectly natural and
grammatical, but I suspect in English it does not. Am I right?
Ruud Harmsen
in sci.lang:
>I think this means that there _is_ "free variation", but _not_
>"complementary distribution" -- i.e., variation occurs in the same
>speaker, but isn't governed by phonetic environment.
In other words, these speakers can speak different dialects, a broad
Cockney and a less broad Cockney or near RP.
Heidi Graw
>"Ruud Harmsen" <realema...@rudhar.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:0blo14ljobgmvand6...@4ax.com...
> Fri, 2 May 2008 06:26:59 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>
>>I have told many times here about when I was in the queue for the
>>Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge [...]
>
> It's interesting to see that you, being a native speaker, use the verb
> "to tell" without an indirect object here, in other words you don't
> implicitly mention to whom you told that. Is it because the "here"
> more of less replaces an implicit indirect object like "you guys here
> in sci.lang"?
> Or is there a difference between what is grammatically allowed with
> "tell about" and "tell that"?
>
> Examples made up by me:
> "I explained ([to] them) that this and that happened the other day."
> "I mentioned (to them) that this and that happened the other day."
> "I told (them) that this and that happened the other day."
If you were to exchange the word "told" with "said," would you
still be suspicious about its correctness?
"I said that this and that happened the other day."
Iyo, is there a difference betweeing "telling" and "saying?"
Heidi
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Fri, 2 May 2008 06:26:59 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> >I have told many times here about when I was in the queue for the
> >Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge [...]
>
> It's interesting to see that you, being a native speaker, use the verb
> "to tell" without an indirect object here, in other words you don't
> implicitly mention to whom you told that. Is it because the "here"
> more of less replaces an implicit indirect object like "you guys here
> in sci.lang"?
> Or is there a difference between what is grammatically allowed with
> "tell about" and "tell that"?
It's entirely possible that there was a change in semantic direction
between the beginning of the sentence and the end.
Once the temporal and spatial adverbs intervened, it would be very
awkward to put a direct object; but "tell about" is far, far less
disturbing than the Russian-speaker's "I told that ..." instead of "I
said that ...".
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>> Examples made up by me:
>> "I explained ([to] them) that this and that happened the other day."
>> "I mentioned (to them) that this and that happened the other day."
>> "I told (them) that this and that happened the other day."
>
>If you were to exchange the word "told" with "said," would you
>still be suspicious about its correctness?
No. The verb "say" doesn't require the indirect object. But if used,
it has to be "to them" and cannot be "them".
In Dutch on the other hand, I can use all three: "zei", "zei ze" and
"zei tegen ze".
>"I said that this and that happened the other day."
>
>Iyo, is there a difference betweeing "telling" and "saying?"
Grammatically, yes, there is a difference. According to my non-native
but sometimes correct and automatic English sense of grammar there is.
Ruud Harmsen
<realema...@rudhar.com.invalid>: in sci.lang:
>Fri, 2 May 2008 06:26:59 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>
>>I have told many times here about when I was in the queue for the
>>Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge [...]
>
>It's interesting to see that you, being a native speaker, use the verb
>"to tell" without an indirect object here, in other words you don't
>implicitly mention [...]
Explicitely, actually. I often confuse these two words, and misspell
them.
John Atkinson
"Ruud Harmsen" <realema...@rudhar.com.invalid> wrote in message
More accurately, I think, they command different _registers_ in the same
_dialect_ (Cockney)
J.
anal...@hotmail.com
Isn't it more likely that "I have told many times here [the story]
about"
was the intent and there was some ellipsis given the informal setting.
It is also possible that "told" was used in place of the more precise
"posted" that wouldn't even need the ellipsis.
Peter T. Daniels
That's what I can't do. Furriners have no compunction about
interrupting verb and object that way, but it just sounds awful.
> It is also possible that "told" was used in place of the more precise
> "posted" that wouldn't even need the ellipsis.-
No, I haven't "posted about" the story, I've told (or posted) the
story.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Sat, 03 May 2008 14:45:11 +0200: Ruud Harmsen
>
> >Fri, 2 May 2008 06:26:59 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> >>I have told many times here about when I was in the queue for the
> >>Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge [...]
>
> >It's interesting to see that you, being a native speaker, use the verb
> >"to tell" without an indirect object here, in other words you don't
> >implicitly mention [...]
>
> Explicitely, actually. I often confuse these two words, and misspell
> them.
One in the former posting, and one in this posting!
Barbara Bailey
news:75a62031-6668-48d1...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
Ellipsis definitely, but more likely if it were to be restored it would
be "I have told [the story] many times here..."
Ruud Harmsen
in sci.lang:
>
>"Ruud Harmsen" <realema...@rudhar.com.invalid> wrote
>> In other words, these speakers can speak different dialects, a broad
>> Cockney and a less broad Cockney or near RP.
>
>More accurately, I think, they command different _registers_ in the same
>_dialect_ (Cockney)
Yes, that's better.
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>> >It's interesting to see that you, being a native speaker, use the verb
>> >"to tell" without an indirect object here, in other words you don't
>> >implicitly mention [...]
>>
>> Explicitely, actually. I often confuse these two words, and misspell
>> them.
>
>One in the former posting, and one in this posting!
Yes. Explicitely should be explicitly.
Woody Wordpecker
<realema...@rudhar.com.invalid> said:
> Examples made up by me:
> "I explained ([to] them) that this and that happened the other day."
> "I mentioned (to them) that this and that happened the other day."
> "I told (them) that this and that happened the other day."
>
> In my view, in the third example, the "them" is obligatory in English;
It's not. "Tell" can be either transitive or intransitive.
It can even be used where there is no subject to show who is
doing the telling, as in "In days of yore it was told that
the earth was flat".
Your example sentence could arise in a discussion of a
speech, like
In my speech I told of many things. In particular,
I told that a murder had happened the previous day.
Woody Wordpecker
( Followup-to set to alt.usage.english only. I apologize
for carelessly not doing that with my previous posting.)
On Sat, 03 May 2008 11:17:50 -0700, Woody Wordpecker
<exw...@earthlink.net> said:
> On Sat, 03 May 2008 14:45:11 +0200, Ruud Harmsen
> <realema...@rudhar.com.invalid> said:
>
> > Examples made up by me:
> > "I explained ([to] them) that this and that happened the other day."
> > "I mentioned (to them) that this and that happened the other day."
> > "I told (them) that this and that happened the other day."
> >
> > In my view, in the third example, the "them" is obligatory in English;
>
> It's not. "Tell" can be either transitive or intransitive.
Sorry, I shouldn't have said that. The issue was whether an
indirect object is needed with "tell". Transitivity has to
do with direct objects. But I believe the rest of what I
wrote was okay.
James Silverton
Another usage is among small children. When one sees another
doing something of which they disapprove or which annoys them,
the first child may say "I'll tell!". I admit that there is an
implied object: mother, teacher or the like..
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Peter T. Daniels
Bzzzt!
Woody Wordpecker
<gram...@verizon.net> said:
> On May 3, 2:34 pm, Woody Wordpecker <exw6...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > ( Followup-to set to alt.usage.english only. I apologize
> > for carelessly not doing that with my previous posting.)
>
> Would that be because you're rightly ashamed to post misinformation to
> sci.lang?
Pee Dirty Daniels as usual posts a silly remark,
demonstrating again that he is a muddleheaded fool.
Is he really too stupid to know that I have already posted
what I have to say to sci.lang and setting the followups
affects only what others post in reply?
Note also his unscrupulous use of innuendo, giving the world
to think that I have posted misinformation, but providing no
evidence that I have.
Woody Wordpecker
(Followup-to set to alt.usage.english only.)
It was bound to happen. All of that foolishness bottled up
in his muddled head has finally caused him to blow a fuse. I
hope he disappeared in a cloud of smoke afterward.
Incidentally, if any reader thinks there may be something
wrong with the words that seem to have caused him to zap
out, it may help to remember that "told" in one sense is
synonymous with "revealed". If there's nothing wrong with
"I revealed that a murder had happened", then there's
nothing wrong with "I told that a murder had happened".
John Holmes
> Examples from that book of letters, page 118, about a visit to Reve's
> then publisher Geert van Oorschot:
>
> "Geert told that there was a quarrel going on in 'de boezem van het
> Parool' about Gompert's article, and that Frans Goedhart had sent you
> a praising letter."
>
> "Geert told that during his absence your father came at his office
> with a book in which 16 pages were missing (I forgot which book) and
> [...]".
>
> When backtranslated to Dutch, this sounds perfectly natural and
> grammatical, but I suspect in English it does not. Am I right?
I think you are right for English in general.
I sometimes see that sort of "told" in American English, though. Perhaps
it's dialectal from the areas with a lot of Dutch/German/Scandinavian
immigrants. Has anyone studied the geographic distribution?
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Ruud Harmsen
<not.jim....@verizon.not>: in alt.usage.english:
>Another usage is among small children. When one sees another
>doing something of which they disapprove or which annoys them,
>the first child may say "I'll tell!".
In Dutch: "ik ga het zeggen", where one would normally use "vertellen"
in the context of telling someone about something.
Ruud Harmsen
alt.usage.english:
Interesting. Anyhow, that is probably not where G.K. van het Reve got
it from, because in that period he went to Schotland and England a
lot, to learn the language. Among other things he followed a
playwrighting course in London. So he must have had the "tell mistake"
from Dutch, and simply hadn't noticed this difference yet, although he
did already do many other things right. Word order was very often
correct, for example, as far as I can judge; and it is easier for me,
and thus unfair to criticize him, because my generation had so many
more opportunities for exposure than his generation could possibly
have had. Yet I'm sure that my English also contains mistakes,
Dutchisms or otherwise, that I simply don't see myself. Nobody can
ever make up for that missed exposure at a very early age.
Richard Wordingham
> > I think a higher-register example
> > would serve you better - say, "theological." I don't think they'd say
> > "feological." But who knows.
Of course one hears and says 'fearlogical' if one has no contrast
between /f/ and /T/. I can remember a teacher hesitantly telling us
that the /f/ sound was written /ph/ or /th/ in some words. It was in
St. Ives, Huntingdonshire, in the early 60's. I assure you that [T]
can be difficult for a native speaker, especially if /D/ is realised
as a frictionless continuant.
> that would be because people who would be likely to use the word
> "theological" probably passed through Public School and had it beaten
> out of them.
Incidentally, the change of /v/ > /D/ does not happen word initially.
Word initially, the traditional Cockney change is /D/ > /d/. Having /
v/ > /D/ non-initially does not entail not having initial /D/.
> I have told many times here about when I was in the queue for the
> Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge (which has the most bizarre opening
> hours), and in front of me in the line was a new student (it was late
> October, so I suppose he'd been up there a month or so)escorting his
> Cockney-speaking parents, and they were beaming so broadly at his posh
> accent!
When did this happen? Michaelmas (full term, at least) doesn't start
until October. Of course, it's entirely possible he'd already picked
up his posh accent at a public school - assisted places have been
available for a long time, and before them there were the direct grant
schools.
Richard.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On May 2, 2:26 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I can remember a teacher hesitantly telling us
> that the /f/ sound was written /ph/ or /th/ in some words.
Egad! Did he/she miss "gh" by accident?
> It was in
> St. Ives, Huntingdonshire, in the early 60's. I assure you that [T]
> can be difficult for a native speaker, especially if /D/ is realised
> as a frictionless continuant.
Frictionless? In a word like "breathing" or a word like "thy"?
> > I have told many times here about when I was in the queue for the
> > Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge (which has the most bizarre opening
> > hours), and in front of me in the line was a new student (it was late
> > October, so I suppose he'd been up there a month or so)escorting his
> > Cockney-speaking parents, and they were beaming so broadly at his posh
> > accent!
BTW, POSH stood for "Port outward, Starboard homeward" (on a voyage to
India).
Brian M. Scott
"ranjit_...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote
in
<news:f31bcba5-4560-4fcd...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> BTW, POSH stood for "Port outward, Starboard homeward" (on
> a voyage to India).
There is no evidence whatsoever for this tale. The word may
be from the noun <posh> 'a dandy', attested earlier than the
adjective, but this, like all other attempted etymologies,
is uncertain.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
My talk in Dublin was October 19, 1992 (which I remember because it
was originally scheduled for October 12, 1992, an important
anniversary in North America, and they moved it down a week for me),
and my visit to Cambridge was the following Sunday, the day before I
left for Chicago. I queued for the Fitzwilliam (having seen the
Ashmolean the day before -- though I missed the Bodleian because I
took a bus, which got caught in traffic, instead of a train, and it
closes at noon on Saturday) and then for Evensong at King's College --
where I found myself next to a lady whose son lived three blocks from
me in Chicago. I also heard half of Evensong at St. John's College but
had to leave early for the long walk back to the train station because
there were very few trains on a Sunday evening.
Peter T. Daniels
No, it does not.
Nor does the "V for Victory" sign come from archers at Agincourt
showing that their bowfingers had not been amputated.
Nor does "raining cats and dogs" come from pets living in the thatch
of the roof.
Nor does "fuck" come from "for use of carnal knowledge" or however the
tale goes.
Marc
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> BTW, POSH stood for "Port outward, Starboard homeward" (on a voyage to
> India).
One of the few witty things Nabokov managed was to translate Russian
"пошлость" as "posh-lust."
Marc
Brian M. Scott
<marc....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:794079a4-25ba-410e...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> One of the few witty things Nabokov managed [...]
Oh, dear.
Richard Wordingham
news:3e9e09f2-0bc9-4260...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 6:54 pm, Richard Wordingham <jrw0...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On May 2, 2:26 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > I have told many times here about when I was in the queue for the
> > Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge (which has the most bizarre opening
> > hours), and in front of me in the line was a new student (it was late
> > October, so I suppose he'd been up there a month or so)escorting his
> > Cockney-speaking parents, and they were beaming so broadly at his posh
> > accent!
>
> When did this happen? Michaelmas (full term, at least) doesn't start
> until October. Of course, it's entirely possible he'd already picked
> up his posh accent at a public school - assisted places have been
> available for a long time, and before them there were the direct grant
> schools.
My talk in Dublin was October 19, 1992 ...
Then entirely consistent with the lad having already picked up his posh
accent at a public school.
Richard.
Richard Wordingham
news:f31bcba5-4560-4fcd...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 9, 3:54 pm, Richard Wordingham <jrw0...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I can remember a teacher hesitantly telling us
>> that the /f/ sound was written /ph/ or /th/ in some words.
> Egad! Did he/she miss "gh" by accident?
Pronouncing <ph> and <th> as voiceless fricatives gets you close in most
words one doesn't already read as whole words by the third year of
schooling. The same is not true of <ugh>, let alone mere <gh>. For <gh>,
what one actually teaches children is specific groups such as <igh(t)>,
<aught> and <ought> plus individual words.
For the vagaries of <ugh>, just consider, in Kirshenbaum notation:
hough /hA.k/
cough /kA.f/
rough /rV"f/
slough /slV"f/ (shed skin whole)
hiccough /hIkV"p/
bough /baU/
slough /slaU/ (muddy ground)
though /D@U/
through /Tru:/
thorough /TV"r@/
Hugh /hju:/
laugh /lA:f/
faugh /fO:/
Is it legitimate to add the vocalic pronounciation as in 'Happisburgh'
/heIzbr@/ as an example for discontiguous 'ugh'?
>> I assure you that [T]
>> can be difficult for a native speaker, especially if /D/ is realised
>> as a frictionless continuant.
> Frictionless? In a word like "breathing" or a word like "thy"?
If /T/ and /f/ have merged, 'breathing' will be /bri:viN/ (with the usual
variations for -ing). So, the answer is, "In words like 'thy' or, more to
the point, 'the'.".
Richard.
Peter T. Daniels
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
The "graphemes" are usually taken to be <ough> and <augh>, not <ugh>.
Does the last occur anywhere but the names <Hugh> and <Pugh>?
In your scheme, what's the <o> or <a> doing in those spellings?
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:3e9e09f2-0bc9-4260...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Then why was the campus (I don't suppose you call it that) festooned
with notices pertaining to Parents' Day?
Andrew Woode
At one point I would have known all the relevant dates, as I was in
Cambridge during the time in question, but it's a bit harder to
reconstruct from information on the Internet...
The Sunday in question would presumably have been the 25th.
University Full Term starts on a Tuesday, normally in very early
October (the dates for 2007-2012 are between the 2nd and the 7th), so
the 6th is likely for 1992; most new students would in practice have
arrived during the preceding weekend.
So you have three weeks exactly for whatever changes in accent you
want to hypothesize.
(Of course, a student who could already do various accents for
whatever reason, but had previously avoided sounding too 'posh' at
home, might well have been carried away by the Cambridge environment
and failed to adjust back to 'home' accent in his parents' presence).
Richard Wordingham
> The "graphemes" are usually taken to be <ough> and <augh>, not <ugh>.
> Does the last occur anywhere but the names <Hugh> and <Pugh>?
> In your scheme, what's the <o> or <a> doing in those spellings?
The grapheme representing /f/ appears to be <ugh> rather than <gh>. Shaw's
*ghoti /fIS/ is completely wrong. _Gogh_ /gA.f/ is an assimilation to
English _Gough_. In the cases where we have /f/, then the <a> in <augh> is
just an ordinary lengthened 'a' /A/, as in 'after'. While _laughter_ is
then quite regular, _laugh_ is tricky, but parallel to _graph_ /grAf/. The
<o> in <ough> then either has its normal function, as in _cough_ /kA.f/, or
is a graphic substitute for <u> in an environment unsuitable for <u>, as in
_rough_ /rV"f/.
The hardening cases of _hough_ /hA.k/ and _lough_ /lA.k/ (as in _Belfast
Lough_) might as well be treated as cases where we irregularly have /k/
rather than /f/, though _lough_ has very much simply been replaced by _loch_
in speech.
The spelling <hiccough> is simply anomalous - it is based on a mistaken
association with _cough_. I raised it because Ranjit queried what was being
taught in an infant class.
The cases of <augh> and <ough> without a consonant sound are trickier to
analyse. There are clear cases of doublets with and without, e.g. _sough_
/sV"f/ and /saU/, and the dialect pronunciation of _daughter_ /dO:t@/
described as 'dafter'. One can simply give up and treat them as single
graphemes, but I think one can do better than that. I think the best
explanation is to treat the final <ugh> as a silent grapheme, but with the
<u> available for co-option as (part of) the preceding vowel. Then:
In _bough_ /baU/, the vowel is <ou>.
In _though_ /D@U/, the vowel is either <o> as in _so_ or <ou> as in
_shoulder_.
In _through_ /Tru:/, the vowel is <o> as in _two_. (The spelling *throough
would be quite alien.)
In _thorough_ /TV"r@/, the vowels are <o> substituting for <u>. (I'm not
sure why we have <o> for the first vowel.)
In _Hugh_ /hju:/, the vowel is <u>.
In _faugh_ /fO:/, the vowel is <au>.
One might argue that <gh> is a silent grapheme in these words, but I think
the results are inferior. One can improve the results by requiring that a
silent <gh> be preceded by <i> or <u>.
One might want a silent <gh> for words like _high_, but that totally misses
the similarities betwen <igh> in _night_ and <ig> in _sign_ and _paradigm_.
Richard.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:1a0eac5d-e22c-4e93...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> The "graphemes" are usually taken to be <ough> and <augh>,
> not <ugh>. Does the last occur anywhere but the names
> <Hugh> and <Pugh>?
Ugh! Well, there's <Lugh>, the name of an Irish god
([lu:]). And with a different leading vowel there's <heugh>
[hjux] 'a precipitous or hanging descent'; it's a Scottish
and Northern dialect form (as in Spindlestone Heugh near
Bamburgh, Northumberland).
[...]
Brian
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> For the vagaries of <ugh>, just consider, in Kirshenbaum notation:
>
> hough /hA.k/
> cough /kA.f/
> rough /rV"f/
> slough /slV"f/ (shed skin whole)
> hiccough /hIkV"p/
> bough /baU/
> slough /slaU/ (muddy ground)
> though /D@U/
> through /Tru:/
> thorough /TV"r@/
> Hugh /hju:/
> laugh /lA:f/
> faugh /fO:/
Curiously, none of these variants retains a laryngeal fricative. Come
to think of it, in some southern accents, "night" sounds vaguely
similar to German "nacht".
Brian M. Scott
<jrw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
<news:ZNjVj.12795$Lq4....@newsfe05.ams2> in sci.lang:
[...]
> In _thorough_ /TV"r@/, the vowels are <o> substituting for
> <u>. (I'm not sure why we have <o> for the first
> vowel.)
In late ME, /U/ was often spelled <o>; this started in the
vicinity of the minim letters <m> and <n> (whence <sone>
instead of <sune> from OE <sunu>) and was irregularly
extended to all settings.
[...]
> One might want a silent <gh> for words like _high_, but
> that totally misses the similarities betwen <igh> in
> _night_ and <ig> in _sign_ and _paradigm_.
I don't consider them similar and didn't even when I knew
much, much less about the history of the language; <sign>
obviously goes with <signal>, with non-silent <g>, while
<high> obviously goes with <height>.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
"ranjit_...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote
in
<news:6e39dfd3-20a3-41e4...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> On May 10, 2:59 am, "Richard Wordingham" <jrw0...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> For the vagaries of <ugh>, just consider, in Kirshenbaum notation:
>> hough /hA.k/
>> cough /kA.f/
>> rough /rV"f/
>> slough /slV"f/ (shed skin whole)
>> hiccough /hIkV"p/
>> bough /baU/
>> slough /slaU/ (muddy ground)
>> though /D@U/
>> through /Tru:/
>> thorough /TV"r@/
>> Hugh /hju:/
>> laugh /lA:f/
>> faugh /fO:/
> Curiously, none of these variants retains a laryngeal fricative.
There's nothing curious about it: there was never a
*laryngeal* fricative to be retained.
[...]
Brian
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:17:51 -0700 (PDT),
> in
> <news:6e39dfd3-20a3-41e4...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 2:59 am, "Richard Wordingham" <jrw0...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> For the vagaries of <ugh>, just consider, in Kirshenbaum notation:
> >> hough /hA.k/
> >> cough /kA.f/
> >> rough /rV"f/
> >> slough /slV"f/ (shed skin whole)
> >> hiccough /hIkV"p/
> >> bough /baU/
> >> slough /slaU/ (muddy ground)
> >> though /D@U/
> >> through /Tru:/
> >> thorough /TV"r@/
> >> Hugh /hju:/
> >> laugh /lA:f/
> >> faugh /fO:/
> > Curiously, none of these variants retains a laryngeal fricative.
>
> There's nothing curious about it: there was never a
> *laryngeal* fricative to be retained.
By laryngeal fricative, I mean any fricative further back than velar.
Going by its spelling, OE genoh seems to have had such a fricative.
enough
http://www.yourdictionary.com/enough
Etymology: ME inough < OE genoh < Gmc comp. (seen also in Ger genug-,
ON gnogr, Goth ganohs)
> Brian
Brian M. Scott
"ranjit_...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote
in
<news:506255f4-861e-48a1...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
It was something like [je'no:x], with a voiceless velar
fricative derived from an earlier voiced velar fricative.
[...]
Peter T. Daniels
Good answer.
Or, of course, deliberately exaggerated it -- if he was, or they had
made him, into a perfect snob.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:1a0eac5d-e22c-4e93...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I'm beginning to see why your accounts of Thai spelling look so bloody
complicated ...
didn't any of your linguistics teachers teach you about making an
analysis as _simple_ and _elegant_ as possible, and not to multiply
entities?
If ever the term "grapheme" needed another coffin-nail, this certainly
provided it.
Richard Wordingham
>On May 10, 12:10 pm, "Richard Wordingham" <jrw0...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
>> messagenews:1a0eac5d-e22c-4e93...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> One might want a silent <gh> for words like _high_, but that totally
>> misses
>> the similarities betwen <igh> in _night_ and <ig> in _sign_ and
>> _paradigm_.
Perhaps I should just stick to seeing a trigraph <igh> in words like
'night'.
> I'm beginning to see why your accounts of Thai spelling look so bloody
> complicated ...
But Thai spelling is complicated once you move away from native
monosyllables.
> didn't any of your linguistics teachers teach you about making an
> analysis as _simple_ and _elegant_ as possible, and not to multiply
> entities?
You proposed <augh> and <ough>; I counter-proposed <ugh>, which is a
simplification. Therefore I don't understand what that remark has to do
with my analysis as oppose to your apparent approach of labelling it and
sweeping it under the carpet. I don't see the workings as more complicated
than what occurs elsewhere in the orthography.
An analysis that is simple but wrong holds little appeal.
> If ever the term "grapheme" needed another coffin-nail, this certainly
> provided it.
I suppose I ought to know by now that following your lead is a bad idea. Is
there a good word that includes letter, digraph and trigraph? 'Graphic
cluster' is too general.
Richard.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:b403fbf4-580a-4134...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On May 10, 12:10 pm, "Richard Wordingham" <jrw0...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
> >> messagenews:1a0eac5d-e22c-4e93...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >> One might want a silent <gh> for words like _high_, but that totally
> >> misses
> >> the similarities betwen <igh> in _night_ and <ig> in _sign_ and
> >> _paradigm_.
>
> Perhaps I should just stick to seeing a trigraph <igh> in words like
> 'night'.
>
> > I'm beginning to see why your accounts of Thai spelling look so bloody
> > complicated ...
>
> But Thai spelling is complicated once you move away from native
> monosyllables.
>
> > didn't any of your linguistics teachers teach you about making an
> > analysis as _simple_ and _elegant_ as possible, and not to multiply
> > entities?
>
> You proposed <augh> and <ough>; I counter-proposed <ugh>, which is a
No, _I_ did not propose it, that's how spellers have treated it since
the beginning of spelling-books.
> simplification. Therefore I don't understand what that remark has to do
No, it is not a simplification. It's shorter, and brings with it
astounding complication in "rules."
> with my analysis as oppose to your apparent approach of labelling it and
> sweeping it under the carpet. I don't see the workings as more complicated
> than what occurs elsewhere in the orthography.
>
> An analysis that is simple but wrong holds little appeal.
>
> > If ever the term "grapheme" needed another coffin-nail, this certainly
> > provided it.
>
> I suppose I ought to know by now that following your lead is a bad idea. Is
> there a good word that includes letter, digraph and trigraph? 'Graphic
> cluster' is too general.
Good word for what?
There's no reason to suppose writing/spelling/orthography works in an
emic/etic way, because emic/etic analysis appears to be built in to
the brain, but writing is not any sort of innate property.
Brian M. Scott
<jrw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
<news:ESyVj.35375$815....@newsfe16.ams2> in sci.lang:
[...]
> Is there a good word that includes letter, digraph and
> trigraph? 'Graphic cluster' is too general.
Mildred K. Pope uses <graphy> in her history of French; I
imagine that she was consciously Englishing French
<graphie>.
Brian
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 17:10:18 +0100, Richard Wordingham
> <news:ZNjVj.12795$Lq4....@newsfe05.ams2> in sci.lang:
> > In _thorough_ /TV"r@/, the vowels are <o> substituting for
> > <u>. (I'm not sure why we have <o> for the first
> > vowel.)
>
> In late ME, /U/ was often spelled <o>; this started in the
> vicinity of the minim letters <m> and <n> (whence <sone>
> instead of <sune> from OE <sunu>) and was irregularly
> extended to all settings.
Is this in any way connected to [U]/[u] being spelt <o> in current
Scandinavian languages?
Brian M. Scott
"ranjit_...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote
in
<news:3de29d8f-a9f5-4248...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> On May 10, 10:32 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
[...]
>> In late ME, /U/ was often spelled <o>; this started in the
>> vicinity of the minim letters <m> and <n> (whence <sone>
>> instead of <sune> from OE <sunu>) and was irregularly
>> extended to all settings.
> Is this in any way connected to [U]/[u] being spelt <o> in current
> Scandinavian languages?
No. This is a pronunciation change, not a spelling change.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:19:22 +0100, Richard Wordingham
> <news:ESyVj.35375$815....@newsfe16.ams2> in sci.lang:
>
> [...]
>
> > Is there a good word that includes letter, digraph and
> > trigraph? 'Graphic cluster' is too general.
>
> Mildred K. Pope uses <graphy> in her history of French; I
> imagine that she was consciously Englishing French
> <graphie>.
At Strand yesterday, I came across Pope's From Latin to French and
Grandgent's From Latin to Italian -- doubtless both from the same
previous owner -- but they are sufficiently distant from my interests
not to be worth $65 for the pair. Likewise, alas, Skeat's two volumes
of Principles of English Etymology, also $30 + $35.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:32661e47-fde3-4393...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> At Strand yesterday, I came across Pope's From Latin to
> French and Grandgent's From Latin to Italian -- doubtless
> both from the same previous owner -- but they are
> sufficiently distant from my interests not to be worth
> $65 for the pair. [...]
Not bad: I think that I paid $45 for my Pope. I've never
been fortunate enough to stumble across a decent history of
Italian, unfortunately.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:08:16 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <news:32661e47-fde3-4393...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
> [...]
>
> > At Strand yesterday, I came across Pope's From Latin to
> > French and Grandgent's From Latin to Italian -- doubtless
> > both from the same previous owner -- but they are
> > sufficiently distant from my interests not to be worth
> > $65 for the pair. [...]
>
> Not bad: I think that I paid $45 for my Pope. I've never
> been fortunate enough to stumble across a decent history of
> Italian, unfortunately.
Pulgram has two, and Chicago published a translation of one of
DeVoto's, which was regularly included in warehouse sales for years.
Strand also had another copy of Migliorini's in the Great Languages
series. (strandbooks.com)
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Ditto "f" for "th" (especially in London).
>
> > In every context? I find it difficult to imagine that anyone
> > pronounces mythical as miffickle.
>
> Stuart-Smith & Timmins give some statistics or incidence of [f]
> for /T/ (and other realisations) in different word positions in
> Glasgow English:
>
> http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESLL/EngLang/phonetics/STU.pdf
>
> Although the incidence of [f] is lower in word-medial position, it
> definitely occurs.
Thanks. I'd have liked to see "thousand"; unfortunately, it was not
one of the words surveyed. It often sounds at least as close to
plosive as to fricative (which might make it a lax plosive),
especially in a sentence like "The grand old Duke of York had ten
thousand men". If they had been "ten thinking men", the "th" would be
fricative.
>
> Neil