Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: YEAPT: f/T (was Re: Other Vulgar Latins?)

From:Tristan Alexander McLeay <conlang@...>
Date:Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 2:22
(Firstly... I'm currently using Gmail. I think some people said here
they'd stopped adding Reply-To: or something... But it seems they
still are. Is there some way to stop it, or only over-ride it, which
I'm currently doing when sending from my conlang account?)

(Apologies to Mark, who make get two or more copies of some of this
email due to forgetfulness on my part.)

On 22/02/06, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
> On 2/21/06, Tristan Alexander McLeay <conlang@...> wrote: > > > > infuse enthuse > > I would consider them to be /Infju\:s/ vs /InTu\:s/ (with /fj/ vs /T/). > > Oh, good point. I missed that. I suppose some 'lects must have /Tju/ > in the latter, but not mine.
I think it dies at the same time as /lj/ and /sj/ mostly do, so I'd guess that conservative RP has it, but younger forms don't. Still, having no idea what the word "thews" in the original list means, I would read it as /Tju\:z/, which I have no problem saying, versus some difficulty with word-initial [lj] and an almost automatic change of attempted [sj]->[S]. Possibly because the only common words (that I can think of) with earlier /Tju:/ is "enthuse"/"enthusiasm" and related ones.
> (Do you really have /s/ instead of /z/ at the end of those, or was that a typo?)
Typo. On 22/02/06, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
> On 2/21/06, Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:43:24 -0500, Keith Gaughan <kmgaughan@...> > > wrote: > > > > >> half hearth > > > > > > I don't know any dialect of English where these two are a minimal pair, > > > rhotic or non-rhotic. > > > > I have /hAf/ ~ /hAT/. In non-careful enough speech, I can have /A:f/ for > > both of them.
I'm not sure what the distinction you're trying to draw between /A:/ and /A/ is, Paul. Could you elaborate, or is it just a typo/thinko?
> Even if I spoke non-rhotically, that would make it /h&f/-/hAT/.
One of the distinctions between SE England + SAfE, AusE, NZE dialects and most of the rest is that in the latter set, an EMnE /a/ (as it "at") was lengthened before /f T s/ and was retracted (or at least wasn't fronted) so that it's now quantitively and qualitively distinct from the short a (called "the trap-bath split"). In all of them but AusE, it also occurred before /m n/+C where C is a limited subset of consonants (tho AusE also has /a:/ in "aunt" and "can't", and in many other words is possible but not necessarily common, see the thing on "castle" below). The change was irregular so that "mass" /m&s/ and "pass" /pa:s/ don't rhyme. Syllable structure is relevant. (It might be interesting to note that London dialects like EE and Cockney have /A:/ before /m n/+C that AusE doesn't have, so when such people say things like "dahnce" [dA:ns] it sounds really odd to me. A bizarre addition of an upperclass feature to a classless or lowerclass dialect.) Some eastern American dialects also have (had?) the change particularly in eastern New England. I think under the influence of the GAmE, the set of words has shrunk. In New York City & Philidelphia English a related change has occurred so that a "tense short a" (something like [e@] I think) exists in these words as well as before voiced stops & fricatives and nasals generally; but not in strong verbs. In that regards, it's the union of the above change as well as a second lengthening phenomenon (called the "bad-lad split") in some dialects (like AusE, Estuary English, some RP); the exact distribution of this one differs in every dialect that has it. (tables like fixed-width fonts) NYCE PhilE AusE RP# castle/graph^ & & &/a: A: pass/path* (fTs) E@ E@ a: A: half/halve (-alf/-alve) E@ E@ a: A: can't/aunt^ E@ E@ a: A: dance* (nm + C) E@ E@ &:/a: A: fan/lamb (nm) E@ E@ &: & bad/glad/mad/(sad)^ E@ E@ &: & bag (g) E@ & &: & stab/lad/badge% (bddZ) E@ & & & * -> irregular split only (i.e. specific words with no rhyme or reason, versus the regular ones where exceptions have patterns or grammatical/syllabic reasons for not splitting) ^ -> more or less only the words listed # -> varieties without the bad/lad split, as it's called, obviously; those with it look like AusE but don't have "bag" % -> I would say at least in some varities of Melburnian English, "badge" words are at least beginning to split into the /&:/ set (table adapted from an unpublished article on this that I've got my hands on) (The "castle" set is interesting---in Australia, a handful of words like "castle", "graph" have a socially-relevant split so that pronunciations like /ka:s@l/ and /gra:f/ have been favored by the sort of people who live in expensive suburbs, and pronunciations like /k&s@l/ and /gr&f/ by the sort who live in working-class suburbs. (It's stereotyped as a regional thing but such stereotypes never work out properly. Melburnians think Sydneysiders say /gra:f/, and Brisbanites & Sydneysiders think Melburnians say /gra:f/...) However, what's interesting is that apparently more-or-less this same set of words have /A:/ in England, but /&/ in American (splitting) dialects. [fwiw, I grew up in a working-class suburb, but went to highschool in a posh but state school so I never know how to say "castle"...]) -- Tristan.


Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...>YAEPT: apparently bizarre 'A's (was Re: YEAPT: f/T (was Re: Other Vulgar Latins?))
Joe <joe@...>