Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

CHAT: [CHAT: SoCal] Re: â? â? â? Re: Story - TCOAIW

From:Kendra <kendra@...>
Date:Saturday, October 12, 2002, 1:09
Holy cow, I totally missed this message, I would have combined it into the
other oen if I'd've noticed. (Contractions are fun! Whee!)

David Peterson said:

>Anyway, [M] is the unrounded version of [u]. Most people I know from
Southern California have lost the >rounding in their back vowels in most cases--or they've fronted, in some cases, and kept their rounding (like in
>"food", which often comes out something like [fy:d], though not as
extreme). Yeah, you're right, I don't do that either, hence the mumbling. I just don't know my vowels. <<That's probably a more common pronunciation. I would say "You'dn't've gone if he did, would've you?," though. :)>>
>Whoa! You serious? "Would've you..." That sounds like Merry Olde
England. ;) Really? Maybe I'm just odd.Ending a sentence with have instead of you sounds bizarre to me though. My sister agrees that "would've you" sounds more likely, but says that she would never use a have. My mom says she would say "would you have," though. It might be my own personal quirk or something from my area specifically, I don't know. <<Yep, Southern California. However, it may be interesting to note that everyone else I know either speaks slowly (more common), or speaks in quick bursts with lots of "ums" and repeated last words (less common.)>>
>Hey! You're the first one I've heard of besides me! (Though, is Marc
Smith still at UCLA...?) Where you >at? I'm from Orange County, though since I go to Berkeley, the stigma's worn off. ;) Anyway, I don't think
>it has to much to do with speed (American English is pretty slow as
languages go, anyway); just the way >contractions are dealt with. What I mean is, do you think that someone who speaks more slowly would >actually say, "Do not put that there" or "You would not have gone if he did, would you have?" (Actually, if you >separate that out, makes it look like it should be "had" rather than "did"...) Course, this is all basically
>speculation. Some linguist should check up on this, though. I think it'd
be worthwhile. I doubt they would stretch things out, but I think speaking quickly facilitates the use of more complicated and/or more stupid contractions. Like I said, I smash entire sentences together in one words when I'm around people I know can understand me. Though, as to wouldn't've vs. wouldn't have, I think people in my area would say wouldn't have if they knew it was wouldn't have and not wouldn't OF. A lot of people seem to say wouldn't of instead of wouldn't've, because of the vowel in of sticking itself in there. I can't even hope to transliterate this correctly, so if I do something crazy, it's probably spelling overcoming my meager (read: nonexistant) linguistic knowledge. whereas wouldn't've is something like [wMn.n@v] or [wM.@n.n@v] to me (the first @ in the second one should be i like "in " in my dialect, but...yeah, you've heard me complain already) but a good amount of people say [wMn.@n.Vv]. And you're right about had instead of did, I think I would say did, I left it in the example though because it wasn't what I was talking about. Hope thatm akes sense. :) -Kendra -- Vade Mecum (comic) ----- Original Message ----- From: David Peterson To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 10:01 PM Subject: Re: [CHAT: SoCal] Re: â? â? â? Re: Story - TCOAIW -David "imDeziZejDekp2wilDez ZejDekkinel..." "You can celebrate anything you want..." -John Lennon