British English "Joshuer is"
Marc
term for two vowels next to each other which don't form a diphthong)?
Thanks,
Marc
John Atkinson
> Why do Brits add an R between vowels in hiatus (if that's the correct
> term for two vowels next to each other which don't form a diphthong)?
>
This has been dealt with here before, but I just came upon a neat
expression of the diacronic rule inversion involved:
Stage 1. Sound change: r > zero / W_{#,C}
Resulting surface pattern: W{#,C} ~ W r V
Stage 2. Synchronic reanalysis: zero --> r / W_V
(adapted from Juliette Blevens, Consonant Epenthesis, in "Linguistic
Universals and Language Change", ed J. Good)
Here V denotes any vowel; W denotes any of the vowels that "come
before" intrusive r -- in my dialect /@, I@, E@, 3:, U@, O:, A:/
(<baaing> (like a sheep) seems to be an exception to the last one, but
that may be because it's onamatapeic.) I understand a Cockney would add
/aU/ to this list.
A few people (Brian Scott claims to be one) don't have stage 2. That
is, they have linking r but not intrusive r.
John.
Brian M. Scott
<john...@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:gJ04k.10004$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> in
sci.lang:
[...]
> A few people (Brian Scott claims to be one) don't have
> stage 2. That is, they have linking r but not intrusive
> r.
Probably because I was originally rhotic.
Brian
António Marques
> A few people (Brian Scott claims to be one) don't have stage 2. That
> is, they have linking r but not intrusive r.
Only a few? I used to think linking r was the norm, with intrusive r a
marginal thing. But I've seen more and more claims of intrusive r being
in the lead by a great distance.
(As I said before, I don't like intrusive r at all, and that partly
explains my surprise at its acceptance.)
--
António Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>John Atkinson wrote:
>> A few people (Brian Scott claims to be one) don't have stage 2. That
>> is, they have linking r but not intrusive r.
>
>Only a few? I used to think linking r was the norm, with intrusive r a
>marginal thing. But I've seen more and more claims of intrusive r being
>in the lead by a great distance.
It was frowned upon, but that usally happens just _because_ almost
everybody does it, including the frowners themselves.
--
Ruud Harmsen
António Marques
Have I mentioned how much I'm distressed by David McCallum's doing it in
Sapphire & Steel? Steel is precisely the sort of character that
shouldn't do it.
anal...@hotmail.com
I have heard BBC newsreaders say "Indier" for India.
Rex Harrison says (sings) "I sawret once" for 'I saw at once" in "My
Fair Lady".
I have heard "Mineoler" for "Mineola" in the U.S.
Are all these examples covered by simple rules?
John Atkinson
> On Jun 11, 10:04 pm, Marc <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why do Brits add an R between vowels in hiatus (if that's the correct
>> term for two vowels next to each other which don't form a diphthong)?
>
> I have heard BBC newsreaders say "Indier" for India.
If there was a word following starting with a vowel, it's the same
phenomenon (intrusive R). If not, and the newsreader was non-rhotic
(near-RP for example), "India" and "Indier" would both be pronounced
exactly the same ([Indi:@]), so your statement is meaningless.
OTOH, if the newsreader was rhotic (from Scotland, Ireland, or the West
Country, mostly) it's just a mistake -- and the sort of mistake that
only someone who wasn't familiar with that word could make -- hardly
likely for a BBC person.
> Rex Harrison says (sings) "I sawret once" for 'I saw at once" in "My
> Fair Lady".
Standard intrusive R.
> I have heard "Mineoler" for "Mineola" in the U.S.
If the speaker was rhotic (Standard American), again a "mistake". But
one that (I've heard) is not uncommon among some speakers in some
regions (even for fairly common words), in which case maybe it shouldn't
be classed as a mistake but rather an (incipient?) sound change in that
dialect -- but I'll leave it to the Americans here to say whether this
is actually so.
John.
Peter T. Daniels
> <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote...
> > On Jun 11, 10:04 pm, Marc <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Why do Brits add an R between vowels in hiatus (if that's the correct
> >> term for two vowels next to each other which don't form a diphthong)?
>
> > I have heard BBC newsreaders say "Indier" for India.
>
> If there was a word following starting with a vowel, it's the same
> phenomenon (intrusive R). If not, and the newsreader was non-rhotic
> (near-RP for example), "India" and "Indier" would both be pronounced
> exactly the same ([Indi:@]), so your statement is meaningless.
It's good Bostonian. JFK had problems with Cuber.
> OTOH, if the newsreader was rhotic (from Scotland, Ireland, or the West
> Country, mostly) it's just a mistake -- and the sort of mistake that
> only someone who wasn't familiar with that word could make -- hardly
> likely for a BBC person.
>
> > Rex Harrison says (sings) "I sawret once" for 'I saw at once" in "My
> > Fair Lady".
>
> Standard intrusive R.
>
> > I have heard "Mineoler" for "Mineola" in the U.S.
>
> If the speaker was rhotic (Standard American), again a "mistake". But
> one that (I've heard) is not uncommon among some speakers in some
> regions (even for fairly common words), in which case maybe it shouldn't
> be classed as a mistake but rather an (incipient?) sound change in that
> dialect -- but I'll leave it to the Americans here to say whether this
> is actually so.
Mineola is on Long Island, New York. Long Island dialect is New York
City dialect only moreso, so "Mineoler" is the local pronunciation of
the name. (Like Chic[O]go not Chic[a]go, Nev[&]da not Nev[a]da, and
Wi[sk]onsin not Wi[skh]onsin -- the native syllable break is before,
not after, the s.)
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>On Jun 11, 10:04 pm, Marc <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why do Brits add an R between vowels in hiatus (if that's the correct
>> term for two vowels next to each other which don't form a diphthong)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Marc
>
>I have heard BBC newsreaders say "Indier" for India.
Yes, of course, because in their dialect, these two are homophones.
>Rex Harrison says (sings) "I sawret once" for 'I saw at once" in "My
>Fair Lady".
>
>I have heard "Mineoler" for "Mineola" in the U.S.
>
>Are all these examples covered by simple rules?
Yes. Look for "linking r" and "intrusive r".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linking_and_intrusive_R
anal...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:58:57 -0700 (PDT): analys...@hotmail.com: in
Thanks (and also to John and Peter).
I think that my bee in the bonnet - "reduced articulatory effort" is
at work here (although these transgressors (my characterization) are
adding sound and not reducing it). I always found things like British
"drawring" to be - choose your word here - illiterate, childish, cute,
funny, uncultivated, country bumpkin, sloppy etc. and lo and behold,
the article you cited says that some people want to include it in RP.
Do you think something similar is at work in the coarsening (my
characterization) of "each other" to "ee chuther", an example that was
cited here recently?
John Atkinson
> I always found things like British
> "drawring" to be - choose your word here - illiterate, childish, cute,
> funny, uncultivated, country bumpkin, sloppy etc. and lo and behold,
> the article you cited says that some people want to include it in RP.
I bet it gets blackballed when they put it up for membership.
> Do you think something similar is at work in the coarsening (my
> characterization) of "each other" to "ee chuther",
No. No rule reversal there.
Paul D
I was always amused by an Australian acquaintance who couldn't
pronounce the 'r' at the end of -r words, but would pronounce words
ending in -ah as though there were an 'r', sort of like the chap in the
Monty Python sketch who couldn't pronounce the letter 'c' but did fine
if he substituted a 'k'.
As a result, my acquaintance would pronounce "wicker" as "wicca" — and
vice versa. It actually led to an odd misunderstanding once.
Paul D.
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>As a result, my acquaintance would pronounce "wicker" as "wicca" — and
>vice versa.
That's the normal thing to do in non-rhotic English, and the only
possibility.
>It actually led to an odd misunderstanding once.
Tell us more. I'd expect that misunderstandings are unlikely, because
English words ending in /@/ not due to final /r/ are so rare.
Peter T. Daniels
> term for two vowels next to each other which don't form a diphthong)?
Here's one I heard on the BBC this morning. They were talking about
Honda's new fuel cell cars that will be sold in California soon, which
run on hydrogen. There was a sentence along the lines of "This is
quite different to the petrol or diesel we u[s]ed to refuel" and (I
expected the next word would be "with" and was thinking what a
futuristic way to put it; but) the next syllable turned out to be
"ing," so what was actually said was "This is quite different to the
petrol and diesel we're used to refeuling with": "we're" and "we" were
indistinguishable.
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>Here's one I heard on the BBC this morning. They were talking about
>Honda's new fuel cell cars that will be sold in California soon, which
>run on hydrogen. There was a sentence along the lines of "This is
>quite different to the petrol or diesel we u[s]ed to refuel" and (I
>expected the next word would be "with" and was thinking what a
>futuristic way to put it; but) the next syllable turned out to be
>"ing," so what was actually said was "This is quite different to the
>petrol and diesel we're used to refeuling with": "we're" and "we" were
>indistinguishable.
Strange story. "We're" has a glide to shwa that "we" doesn't have.
Perhaps it gets reduced due to the [j] of the following "used".
Otherwise, it would become a thriphthong glide.
(In Dutch too, the diphthongs <oo>, <ee> and <eu>, for those speakers
that diphthongize them, get reduced before <r> which invokes a
shwa-glide.)
What also surprises me is the confusion between "refuel" followed by
an expected consonant, and the actual refueling, because in the former
case the l is thick (velarised) and the second it is not. But this may
be hard to interpret for speakers of AE, because it seem /l/ is
invariably velarised in variants there.
Ekkehard Dengler
> Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:36:08 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>
>> Here's one I heard on the BBC this morning. They were talking about
>> Honda's new fuel cell cars that will be sold in California soon,
>> which run on hydrogen. There was a sentence along the lines of "This
>> is quite different to the petrol or diesel we u[s]ed to refuel" and
>> (I expected the next word would be "with" and was thinking what a
>> futuristic way to put it; but) the next syllable turned out to be
>> "ing," so what was actually said was "This is quite different to the
>> petrol and diesel we're used to refeuling with": "we're" and "we"
>> were indistinguishable.
> What also surprises me is the confusion between "refuel" followed by
> an expected consonant, and the actual refueling, because in the former
> case the l is thick (velarised) and the second it is not. But this may
> be hard to interpret for speakers of AE, because it seem /l/ is
> invariably velarised in variants there.
Besides, "used" ("accustomed") has /s/ while "used" ("employed") has /z/ and
hence a slightly longer vowel.
Regards,
Ekkehard
John Atkinson
> Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:36:08 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>
>> Here's one I heard on the BBC this morning. They were talking about
>> Honda's new fuel cell cars that will be sold in California soon,
>> which run on hydrogen. There was a sentence along the lines of "This
>> is quite different to the petrol or diesel we u[s]ed to refuel" and
>> (I expected the next word would be "with" and was thinking what a
>> futuristic way to put it; but) the next syllable turned out to be
>> "ing," so what was actually said was "This is quite different to the
>> petrol and diesel we're used to refeuling with": "we're" and "we"
>> were indistinguishable.
>
> Strange story. "We're" has a glide to shwa that "we" doesn't have.
> Perhaps it gets reduced due to the [j] of the following "used".
> Otherwise, it would become a thriphthong glide.
How? /j/ is a consonant. It's [wi@ju:st]. One diphthong and one long
vowel. No triphthongs there.
> (In Dutch too, the diphthongs <oo>, <ee> and <eu>, for those speakers
> that diphthongize them, get reduced before <r> which invokes a
> shwa-glide.)
Perhaps, but there's no [r] at all in "we're used".
John.
Peter T. Daniels
> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:36:08 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
(That's why I put the s in phonetic brackets -- there's no standard
way to spell "useta.")
Peter T. Daniels
> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:36:08 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
But this time there was no shwa, either.
Ekkehard Dengler
And why you shouldn't have mistaken the adjective for the verb.
>-- there's no standard way to spell "useta.")
Yes, there is: "used to".
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ekkehard Dengler
Sorry, I misread your misheard version of what was actually said -- and then
you probably misread my misread version. I thought you meant the regular
past tense form of "use" but I realise now that you couldn't have, because
if you had, you wouldn't have expected "with". I never thought of the modal
auxiliary for some reason.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Peter T. Daniels
I don't know what you meant by mistake an adjective for a verb, even
with the main-verb reading of "used."
Ekkehard Dengler
What was actually said ("used" /s/ = adjective):
"This is quite different to the petrol and diesel we['re used to refueling
with]."
What you had expected to hear ("used" /s/ = modal auxiliary):
"This is quite different to the petrol and diesel we [used to refuel with]."
What I thought you had expected to hear ("used" /z/ = main verb):
"This is quite different to the petrol and diesel we [used to refuel our
cars]."
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ruud Harmsen
in sci.lang:
>How? /j/ is a consonant. It's [wi@ju:st]. One diphthong and one long
>vowel. No triphthongs there.
The physical motions when realising the sounds are the same,
regardless of morphology. Phonetically, [j] is meaningless, it's the
same as an [i]. So what we have here is a pentaphthong: ui@iu. That's
complicated, so it tends to be simplified.
>> (In Dutch too, the diphthongs <oo>, <ee> and <eu>, for those speakers
>> that diphthongize them, get reduced before <r> which invokes a
>> shwa-glide.)
>
>Perhaps, but there's no [r] at all in "we're used".
There was, historically. But you are right, /j/ doesn't cause linking
r, so it behaves like a consonant.
Ekkehard Dengler
> Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:08:04 GMT: "John Atkinson" <john...@bigpond.com>:
> in sci.lang:
>
>> How? /j/ is a consonant. It's [wi@ju:st]. One diphthong and one
>> long vowel. No triphthongs there.
>
> The physical motions when realising the sounds are the same,
> regardless of morphology. Phonetically, [j] is meaningless, it's the
> same as an [i].
How would you transcribe RP "yeast" then? (This is not a rhetorical
question.)
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ruud Harmsen
<ED...@t-online.de>: in sci.lang:
Good question. In that situation, [j] may be a closer variant of [i].
In other cases, like diphthong desctiptions, [j] is sometimes used for
something that is often less close that [i], but rather [I] or [e].
Cf. my experiment http://rudhar.com/fonetics/yzrpyply/ei.htm (second
part July 7, 2002.
It seems [j] isn't very clearly defined, phonetically.
Ekkehard Dengler
I've always thought of [j] as an approximant. If it was just a non-syllabic
vowel, "yeast" would sound like a longer version of "east".
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ruud Harmsen
<ED...@t-online.de>: in sci.lang:
>> It seems [j] isn't very clearly defined, phonetically.
>
>I've always thought of [j] as an approximant.
Yes. And to make it more complicated, modern Greek has /i/ and /j/ (as
an approximant) AND also a palatised allophone of the voiced gamma
phoneme. All three are different.
>If it was just a non-syllabic
>vowel, "yeast" would sound like a longer version of "east".
Agreed. BTW, as I hear it, that is exactly what happens in Chinese:
Cf. http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/chin/pinyin1.html#sound (I hear
Pinyin yi as [i:] there) (and sui as [swe], gui as [kwe], bu as [u],
fo as [fwO], and many more "unexpectednesses).
Ruud Harmsen
<realema...@rudhar.com.invalid>: in sci.lang:
Cf. http://www.uvm.edu/~chinese/pinyin.htm , where Pinyin <y> and <w>
seem to be equated with a phoneme /ø/, that is, empty?
<wu> is [u:] and <yi> is [i:], but in the other combinations, the
glide is there. [j] sounds more vowellike to me there, longer and
opener than in Dutch, for example.
Peter T. Daniels
There is no adjective "u[s]ed." In "used car," it's [z].
"Used" in the above sentence is a past participle = "accustomed."
Adjectives don't take infinitive complements.
Ekkehard Dengler
Yes, there is. I think you'll find that most dictionaries classify "used" (=
"accustomed") as an adjective. Cf.
http://tinyurl.com/64ap8n or
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/used (The transcriptions are misleading,
though.)
>In "used car," it's [z].
So?
> "Used" in the above sentence is a past participle = "accustomed."
No, if it was a past participle, being used to something would mean the same
as getting used to it and "used" would never be preceded by "become".
"Accustom" is a normal verb that takes two objects, but "used" is different.
You can accustom someone to something, but you can't use them to it.
> Adjectives don't take infinitive complements.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but "refuelling" obviously isn't
an infinitive complement.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>There is no adjective "u[s]ed." In "used car," it's [z].
Not /s/ and /z/? You are always very careful about these symbols, I
seem to remember?
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:43:14 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> >There is no adjective "u[s]ed." In "used car," it's [z].
>
> Not /s/ and /z/? You are always very careful about these symbols, I
> seem to remember?
We aren't discussing English phonology, but the pronunciation of the
word.
Peter T. Daniels
> though.)
>
> >In "used car," it's [z].
>
> So?
>
> > "Used" in the above sentence is a past participle = "accustomed."
>
> No, if it was a past participle, being used to something would mean the same
> as getting used to it and "used" would never be preceded by "become".
> "Accustom" is a normal verb that takes two objects, but "used" is different.
> You can accustom someone to something, but you can't use them to it.
>
> > Adjectives don't take infinitive complements.
>
> I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but "refuelling" obviously isn't
> an infinitive complement.
We were talking about the "used to refuel with" version.
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
That applied to a lot of my alleged mistakes too. So we finally agree
on this point. Fine.
Ekkehard Dengler
No, we were talking about the word that means "accustomed", i.e. the
adjective you claimed didn't exist.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Nathan Sanders
<7dc6b182-6c23-4760...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Adjectives don't take infinitive complements.
I'm sorry to say you might be wrong. It's sad to see mistakes like
this being made, but everyone is bound to be wrong on occasion.
Are you ready to admit that it is possible for an adjective to take an
infinite complement, and even in some cases, necessary to do so?
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
Peter T. Daniels
> In article
> <7dc6b182-6c23-4760-b1ac-6daf77978...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Adjectives don't take infinitive complements.
>
> I'm sorry to say you might be wrong. It's sad to see mistakes like
> this being made, but everyone is bound to be wrong on occasion.
>
> Are you ready to admit that it is possible for an adjective to take an
> infinite complement, and even in some cases, necessary to do so?
How does Jim McCawley analyze the constructions you exemplify?
How do they apply to the "the petrol we used to refuel with" example?
Ekkehard Dengler
Actually, you were contrasting "used" ("accustomed") with "used
("second-hand") and your point was that the two differ in one phoneme. In
other words, you were talking about a minimal pair. Phonemic distinctions
belong to the domain of phonology, not phonetics, and the correct way of
representing phonemes is to place them between slashes.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Peter T. Daniels
No, I was identifying the word you misread. Dictionaries do not use
phonemic transcriptions.
John Atkinson
I'll just point out that either /ju:st/ (="were accustomed to") or
/ju:zd/ (="utilized, made use of") are possible in this phrase. Note
the difference in meaning. To me, this proves that the two are
different words that just happen to be spelled the same. Or, perhaps
better, that <used to> is one (phonetic and syntactic) word in the first
case (it's an auxiliary verb), and two words in the second case.
John.
Nathan Sanders
<f95d692d-6a93-472e...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 6:12 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7dc6b182-6c23-4760-b1ac-6daf77978...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Adjectives don't take infinitive complements.
> >
> > I'm sorry to say you might be wrong. It's sad to see mistakes like
> > this being made, but everyone is bound to be wrong on occasion.
> >
> > Are you ready to admit that it is possible for an adjective to take an
> > infinite complement, and even in some cases, necessary to do so?
>
> How does Jim McCawley analyze the constructions you exemplify?
As far as I recall, his analysis of Control (Equi) and Raising
predicates (both verbs and adjectives) was indeed that they take
infinitive complements. Do you have a different interpretation of his
analysis?
I don't have access to any of my books, so I can't check, and I'm not
a syntactician, so I don't have all these details committed to memory.
But I can derive the main facts of interest:
* "sorry", "sad", "bound", "ready", "possible", and "necessary" are
most certainly adjectives
* "to say", "to see", "to be wrong", "to admit", "to take", and "to do
so" are most certainly infinitives
* these infinitives can't be arbitrarily stacked (*I'm sorry to say to
see)
* they can't always be replaced by different kinds of phrases (*I'm
sorry to you, *Everyone is bound for being wrong, *Are you ready that
you will admit?)
* in a few cases, an infinitive is even obligatory (*Everyone is bound)
Lack of arbitrary stacking, lack of syntactic variability, and
obligatory presence all strongly suggest subcategorization behavior
(i.e., complements), and point away from an adjunct analysis.
> How do they apply to the "the petrol we used to refuel with" example?
I don't know. You were quick to bring up adjectives taking
infinitival complements, so your readers are sure to assume that you
think they are appropriate to consider.
But now, you're implying the opposite!
Do you think "u[s]ed" is something other than an adjective? If so,
what?
It does satisfy the usual category tests for adjectives:
I am very/too/rather used to this.
I am more used to this than you are.
You seem used to this.
but doesn't satisfy the usual tests for verbs:
*This u[s]es me.
*This is u[s]ing me.
*This should/can/will u[s]e me.
(I won't bother showing how it fails the tests for nouns. I think
that should be easy to see.)
Ekkehard Dengler
> On Jun 17, 8:37 pm, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Jun 17, 8:43 am, Ruud Harmsen
>>> <realemailons...@rudhar.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:43:14 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>>
>>>>> There is no adjective "u[s]ed." In "used car," it's [z].
>>
>>>> Not /s/ and /z/? You are always very careful about these symbols, I
>>>> seem to remember?
>>
>>> We aren't discussing English phonology, but the pronunciation of the
>>> word.
>>
>> Actually, you were contrasting "used" ("accustomed") with "used
>> ("second-hand") and your point was that the two differ in one
>> phoneme. In other words, you were talking about a minimal pair.
>> Phonemic distinctions belong to the domain of phonology, not
>> phonetics, and the correct way of representing phonemes is to place
>> them between slashes.
>
> No, I was identifying the word you misread.
Please read what you wrote, it's still there: "There is no adjective
'u[s]ed'." You were not identifying the word, but denying its existence. The
word does exist, though, and you definitely should have enclosed the
relevant *phoneme* in slashes.
We've been through this before: you make an incorrect statement, someone
disproves it, you try to change the subject. What surprises me is that you
don't realise how counterproductive step 3 of this little routine is. If you
really want to save face, try admitting a mistake.
> Dictionaries do not use phonemic transcriptions.
It's neither here nor there whether they do or don't. No one had mentioned
any dictionary at that point and I had consistently used slashes.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 17, 6:12 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <7dc6b182-6c23-4760-b1ac-6daf77978...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Adjectives don't take infinitive complements.
>
> > > I'm sorry to say you might be wrong. It's sad to see mistakes like
> > > this being made, but everyone is bound to be wrong on occasion.
>
> > > Are you ready to admit that it is possible for an adjective to take an
> > > infinite complement, and even in some cases, necessary to do so?
>
> > How does Jim McCawley analyze the constructions you exemplify?
>
> As far as I recall, his analysis of Control (Equi) and Raising
> predicates (both verbs and adjectives) was indeed that they take
> infinitive complements. Do you have a different interpretation of his
> analysis?
>
> I don't have access to any of my books, so I can't check, and I'm not
> a syntactician, so I don't have all these details committed to memory.
> But I can derive the main facts of interest:
You've done syntax decades more recently than I have.
> * "sorry", "sad", "bound", "ready", "possible", and "necessary" are
> most certainly adjectives
>
> * "to say", "to see", "to be wrong", "to admit", "to take", and "to do
> so" are most certainly infinitives
>
> * these infinitives can't be arbitrarily stacked (*I'm sorry to say to
> see)
>
> * they can't always be replaced by different kinds of phrases (*I'm
> sorry to you, *Everyone is bound for being wrong, *Are you ready that
> you will admit?)
>
> * in a few cases, an infinitive is even obligatory (*Everyone is bound)
>
> Lack of arbitrary stacking, lack of syntactic variability, and
> obligatory presence all strongly suggest subcategorization behavior
> (i.e., complements), and point away from an adjunct analysis.
>
> > How do they apply to the "the petrol we used to refuel with" example?
>
> I don't know. You were quick to bring up adjectives taking
> infinitival complements, so your readers are sure to assume that you
> think they are appropriate to consider.
No, Ekkehard brought up adjectives, to my immense confusion.
> But now, you're implying the opposite!
>
> Do you think "u[s]ed" is something other than an adjective? If so,
> what?
>
> It does satisfy the usual category tests for adjectives:
>
> I am very/too/rather used to this.
> I am more used to this than you are.
> You seem used to this.
>
> but doesn't satisfy the usual tests for verbs:
>
> *This u[s]es me.
> *This is u[s]ing me.
> *This should/can/will u[s]e me.
>
> (I won't bother showing how it fails the tests for nouns. I think
> that should be easy to see.)
It is some sort of incipient modal.
Ekkehard Dengler
More precisely, you quoted the sentence "This is quite different to the
petrol and diesel we're used to refuelling with", which contains the word
"used", which I was the first to refer to as an adjective. Then you brought
up infinitive complements; I have no idea why.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Peter T. Daniels
Because _I_ was talking about the sentence I first expected to hear,
"... we u\s\ed to refuel (with)."
António Marques
> Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:28:43 +0900: Paul D <pa...@hiddenfortress.ten>: in
> sci.lang:
>
>> As a result, my acquaintance would pronounce "wicker" as "wicca" — and
>> vice versa.
>
> That's the normal thing to do in non-rhotic English, and the only
> possibility.
How so for the vice versa?
--
António Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
![Reinhold [Rey] Aman's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWaT0LUDfKA5mIbowVbHAIA3z5Ut7Y8IMosdHd3OIhPWDnj=s40-c)
Reinhold [Rey] Aman
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Adjectives don't take infinitive complements.
> I'm sorry to say you might be wrong. It's sad to see mistakes like
> this being made, but everyone is bound to be wrong on occasion.
Everyone but Petey "Mamaloshen" Daniels, that is. Petey is *never*
wrong; and even after it was documented that he was dead wrong, he'd
rather die than admit his errors. That poor insecure shmuck.
[...]
~~~ Reinhold [Rey] Aman ~~~
Ekkehard Dengler
You've lost track. I had written:
"What was actually said ('used' /s/ = adjective):
'This is quite different to the petrol and diesel we['re used to *refueling*
with].'"
And your reply was:
"There is no adjective 'u[s]ed'."
Which remains wrong in any case.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ekkehard Dengler
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> Why do Brits add an R between vowels in hiatus (if that's the
>>> correct term for two vowels next to each other which don't form a
>>> diphthong)?
>>
>> Here's one I heard on the BBC this morning.
>
> day, a word that would be quite awkward to pronounce without linking
> "r".
I meant "intrusive 'r'".
Ekkehard
Ekkehard Dengler
> On Jun 11, 10:04 pm, Marc <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why do Brits add an R between vowels in hiatus (if that's the correct
>> term for two vowels next to each other which don't form a diphthong)?
>
> Here's one I heard on the BBC this morning.
I heard a British TV chef describe a taste as "vanillary" the other day, a
word that would be quite awkward to pronounce without linking "r".
Regards,
Ekkehard
Peter T. Daniels
Not for an American, it wouldn't.
We spell it <vanilla-y>. How do they spell it?
Ekkehard Dengler
> On Jun 24, 3:52 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Jun 11, 10:04 pm, Marc <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Why do Brits add an R between vowels in hiatus (if that's the
>>>> correct term for two vowels next to each other which don't form a
>>>> diphthong)?
>>
>>> Here's one I heard on the BBC this morning.
>>
>> I heard a British TV chef describe a taste as "vanillary" the other
>> day, a word that would be quite awkward to pronounce without linking
>> "r".
>
> Not for an American, it wouldn't.
>
> We spell it <vanilla-y>. How do they spell it?
Judging by the number of Google hits, <vanillary> and <vanilla-y> are about
equally common, but then the hyphen needn't always represent /r/. How do you
pronounce <vanilla-y>?
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>> I heard a British TV chef describe a taste as "vanillary" the other day, a
>> word that would be quite awkward to pronounce without linking "r".
>
>Not for an American, it wouldn't.
>
>We spell it <vanilla-y>.
But how would that be pronounced? Is such a word at all possible?
Shouldn't it be vanilla-like or something?
>How do they spell it?
It's not in the online Merriam-Webster.
Daniel al-Autistiqui
That reminds me of "pizza-y". I swear I once heard my mother say that
as she began to clean off my hands. (She did not put an "r" into the
word; I believe she used a glottal stop.)
Of course both words are nothing but nonce formations involving the
very productive adjective-forming suffix "-y". I suppose it's
unlikely for a word formed with this suffix to catch on should the
base word end in an "a".
daniel mcgrath
--
Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"
Developmentally disabled;
has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
& periodic bouts of depression.
[This signature is under construction.]
anal...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:19:07 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> >> I heard a British TV chef describe a taste as "vanillary" the other day, a
> >> word that would be quite awkward to pronounce without linking "r".
>
> >Not for an American, it wouldn't.
>
> >We spell it <vanilla-y>.
>
> But how would that be pronounced? Is such a word at all possible?
> Shouldn't it be vanilla-like or something?
>
> >How do they spell it?
>
> It's not in the online Merriam-Webster.
> --
> Ruud Harmsen
>
> http://rudhar.com
The most horrible adjective ending in 'y" that I have ever heard has
to be "Jewy" - I believe it is a coined word - I remember hearing it
on a sitcom several years ago.
Iain
Are #you sure it wasn't dewy?
~Iain
Peter T. Daniels
What's the problem? It's a productive suffix -- chalky, salty,
sugary, ...
The only problem is how to spell it, since "vanillay" would sound
rather different.
anal...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
yes. It was directed at Jason Alexander (in his post Seinfeld
incarnation) who played a Jewish person in the show.
Peter T. Daniels
Al Franken (a bona fide Jew and former comedian who is now running for
Senate from Minnesota) told of a not-very-committed acquaintance: he
wasn't really a Jew, he was Jew-ish.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:52:49 +0200, "Ekkehard Dengler"
>
> <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
> >Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Jun 11, 10:04 pm, Marc <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Why do Brits add an R between vowels in hiatus (if that's the correct
> >>> term for two vowels next to each other which don't form a diphthong)?
>
> >> Here's one I heard on the BBC this morning.
>
> >I heard a British TV chef describe a taste as "vanillary" the other day, a
> >word that would be quite awkward to pronounce without linking "r".
>
> That reminds me of "pizza-y". I swear I once heard my mother say that
> as she began to clean off my hands. (She did not put an "r" into the
> word; I believe she used a glottal stop.)
Here in New York we don't even need the glottal -- just three
syllables with two adjacent vowels at the end. In Chicago, though,
there probably would be a glottal.
> Of course both words are nothing but nonce formations involving the
> very productive adjective-forming suffix "-y". I suppose it's
> unlikely for a word formed with this suffix to catch on should the
> base word end in an "a".
What's wrong with nonce formations ("nothing but")? (Cf. analys...'s
comment "a coined word.")
Language grows by means of linguistic creativity. Whoever said
vanillary and pizza-y was being, very, very modestly, creative.
Reinhold [Rey] Aman
[...]
> Al Franken (a bona fide Jew and former comedian who is now running for
> Senate from Minnesota) told of a not-very-committed acquaintance: he
> wasn't really a Jew, he was Jew-ish.
Al Franken stole this line (being "Jew-ish" rather than a "Jew") from
another Jewish comedian (Mort Sahl? Alan King?), who used that quip at
least 25 years ago.
Ekkehard Dengler
> On Jun 24, 8:50 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Jun 24, 3:52 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 11, 10:04 pm, Marc <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Why do Brits add an R between vowels in hiatus (if that's the
>>>>>> correct term for two vowels next to each other which don't form a
>>>>>> diphthong)?
>>
>>>>> Here's one I heard on the BBC this morning.
>>
>>>> I heard a British TV chef describe a taste as "vanillary" the other
>>>> day, a word that would be quite awkward to pronounce without
>>>> linking "r".
>>
>>> Not for an American, it wouldn't.
>>
>>> We spell it <vanilla-y>. How do they spell it?
>>
>> Judging by the number of Google hits, <vanillary> and <vanilla-y>
>> are about equally common, but then the hyphen needn't always
>> represent /r/. How do you pronounce <vanilla-y>?
>
> What's the problem?
I thought my question was straightforward enough. What I was hoping to
elicit from you was a (phonetic or phonemic) transcription of your actual or
preferred pronunciation of <vanilla-y>.
> It's a productive suffix -- chalky, salty,
> sugary, ...
The obvious difference is that "chalk", "salt" and "sugar" don't end in
schwa, which can't normally be followed by /I/ or /i/.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ekkehard Dengler
> On Jun 24, 1:08 pm, Daniel al-Autistiqui <govend...@hotmail.invalid>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:52:49 +0200, "Ekkehard Dengler"
>>
>> <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Jun 11, 10:04 pm, Marc <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Why do Brits add an R between vowels in hiatus (if that's the
>>>>> correct term for two vowels next to each other which don't form a
>>>>> diphthong)?
>>
>>>> Here's one I heard on the BBC this morning.
>>
>>> I heard a British TV chef describe a taste as "vanillary" the other
>>> day, a word that would be quite awkward to pronounce without
>>> linking "r".
>>
>> That reminds me of "pizza-y". I swear I once heard my mother say that
>> as she began to clean off my hands. (She did not put an "r" into the
>> word; I believe she used a glottal stop.)
>
> Here in New York we don't even need the glottal -- just three
> syllables with two adjacent vowels at the end. In Chicago, though,
> there probably would be a glottal.
OK, that answers my question then.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Joe Fineman
> The most horrible adjective ending in 'y" that I have ever heard has
> to be "Jewy" - I believe it is a coined word - I remember hearing it
> on a sitcom several years ago.
The OED has it ("depreciatory") from 1904.
God rest that Jewy woman,
Queen Jezebel, the bitch
Who peeled the clothes from her shoulder-bones
Down to her spent teats...
-- F. R. Higgins, "Song for the Clatter-Bones"
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: His mother was a Daughter of the American Revolution, and he :||
||: was a son of a bitch. :||
Marc
wrote:
> But how would that be pronounced? Is such a word at all possible?
Of course it's possible. The effect is slightly comic, but hey,
English is funny.
In the "Krazy Kripples" episode of South Park there's the following
line:
Reporter: Tom, the irony is even more irony-y as it appears that the
stem cells have given Christopher Reeve almost superhuman strength.
When the South Park full episode viewing site is back online, you
should check it out. The line is very funny, but as someone said, -y
is a 100% productive suffix, so the meaning is perfectly clear to all
native speakers (and funny to intelligent native speakers).
Marc
Marc
> yes. It was directed at Jason Alexander (in his post Seinfeld
> incarnation) who played a Jewish person in the show.
Are you sure it wasn't "jewelry"?
Marc
Peter T. Daniels
Why can't it? What does "normally" mean? You've just been given two
perfectly normal examples: vanilla-y and pizza-y.
Ekkehard Dengler
Don't ask me, I didn't invent the English language.
>What does "normally" mean?
"Without violating a phonotactic constraint". There's a reason why
Chicagoans would probably insert a glottal stop between the two vowels.
> You've just been given two
> perfectly normal examples: vanilla-y and pizza-y.
Which you referred to in another post as examples of linguistic creativity.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Peter T. Daniels
Yeah -- different phonotactic constraints. Once again, define
"normal."
> > You've just been given two
> > perfectly normal examples: vanilla-y and pizza-y.
>
> Which you referred to in another post as examples of linguistic creativity.
And linguistic creativity is perfectly normal. It's in our genes. If
language couldn't change, it would be just about useless as
environmental conditions change.
Ekkehard Dengler
See below.
>>> You've just been given two
>>> perfectly normal examples: vanilla-y and pizza-y.
>>
>> Which you referred to in another post as examples of linguistic
>> creativity.
>
> And linguistic creativity is perfectly normal.
I'll use your definition then if I may.
> It's in our genes. If
> language couldn't change, it would be just about useless as
> environmental conditions change.
Linguistic creativity itself is indeed normal, but its products are by
definition unheard of and their acceptability depends largely on whether
they conform to existing patterns. Not every conceivable coinage is a
well-formed English word. It is possible for usage to override phonotactic
constraints (take "schlep" or "schmuck"), but the opposite is obviously also
possible, as the pronunciation /v@'nIl@ri/ shows. The reason why /v@'nIl@i/
isn't quite unremarkable is related to the reason why "naive" is pronounced
/naI'iv/.
Regards,
Ekkehard