Re: USAGE: Weird dialectal stuff

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."
===========================================