Re: x > f sound change

John Cowan wrote:
> But there are people who, when asked to repeat what they have said
> more clearly, will say /ai SUd @v gOn/ and not /ai SUd h&v gOn/,
> which says that they have reanalyzed /Sudv/ as containing "of".
Does anyone say /Sudv/?  I've never heard it without a schwa, in fact,
the /v/ often gets dropped in my experience.  At any rate, if asked to
clearly repeat what I said, I would also say /aj Sud d@nt t@v gAn/, and
likely not /aj Sud nAt h&v gAn/.  I don't see the use of the contraction
in emphatic or clear speach as that odd.

And, I want to restate that I don't disagree that -'ve/-a/of has lost
the connection with "have" for most people, merely that the spelling
"should of" is the result of people not sure how to spell /Sud@(v)/,
note also the common spelling "shoulda", I just don't think that people
actually see it as being identical to the preposition "of"

--
"Oh, so he's made up languages?  I'm not surprised"
"No just cause can be advanced by terror"
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTaylor42

Reply