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

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
http://www.refrigeratedcake.com
http://www.refrigeratedcake.com/comics/theatre -- 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