Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: USAGE: Weird dialectal stuff

From:Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2000, 6:40
Melissa Phong wrote:

> >I think that's the main problem. You could say with just as much > probability > >that what would normally be a /z/ in <use> assimilates in voicing to the > >voicelessness of the following /t/, so that <used to> and <use to> become > >homophones, at least in the context of this habitualizing helping verb > (not > >as in e.g. "that's a tool you use to dig with"). Personally, I feel that > <used to> > >no longer really operates as a helping verb plus <to>, but rather has been > >grammaticalized, for most people, to a simple <usta> /ju:st@/. Something > >similar has happened in my speech, whereby I would normally say "could'na" > >for "could not have": /ai kUdn@ gAn/ = "I could not have gone". > > For myself, I might write "I didn't used to," but I would say "I didn't > use to." > I simply can't pronounce that d without great difficulty and then only by > putting a significant pause between used and to. Tom, what you're > describing is not unique to you. I know a lot of people who say "could'n > 'av" and "could 'av" for "could not have" and "could have" to the point > where I've seen people write "couldn't of" and "could of" because they're > deceived by how it sounds.
Right. For them, the "have" in "could've" has become grammaticalized, fused with the word that once preceded it. Although, when I speak, I rarely have the /v/ there -- it's usually dropped entirely: "could have" --> "coulda"; "should have" --> "shoulda" etc. =========================================== Tom Wier <artabanos@...> AIM: Deuterotom ICQ: 4315704 <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/> "Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero." ===========================================