Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: x > f sound change

From:Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>
Date:Saturday, September 15, 2001, 0:56
Michael Poxon wrote:
> No, I don't think the difference is orthographical at all. The interesting > thing that struck me the first time I heard it (I can remember it - it was > only a few years back) was that it was a wonderful example of linguistic > change in action across many simultaneous fronts: chiefly syntactic and > phonologic. The syntactic stream phonologised as /Sud(schwa)v/ was not being > analysed as verb+auxiliary, but instead verb+particle or preposition, in > effect, similar to "phone up". Do we now see the auxiliary "have" > metamorphosing into "of"? Will we be able to say "Of you seen my new car?" > for instance, or will the change have /-v/ into of /-v/ remain only in > unstressed positions?
Well, I think it's more that _Should've_ or _Shoulda_ is seen as a single unit, so people don't know *how* to write it, just like my example of the spelling "Ya'll" (which is a personal pet peeve of mine), people've forgotten what it's a contraction of. I think of it as being seen as a particle /@(v)/, I certainly agree that people have ceased to see it as "should have", but I don't think that that particle would ever become independent. It's a clitic that has to be attached to an auxiliary, like should or could. I was merely disagreeing that it was seen as actually being the same as "of", I think the spelling is used because "of" is the only word in English pronounced /@(v)/. -- "No just cause can be advanced by terror" ICQ: 18656696 AIM Screen-Name: NikTaylor42


John Cowan <cowan@...>
Marcus Smith <smithma@...>should've (was: Re: x > f sound change)