Re: another silly phonology question

On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Raymond Brown wrote:

>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>At 10:46 pm -0500 28/11/00, Padraic Brown wrote:
>[....]
>>
>>No? " nuffin "? Wo? sor? a burk says " nuffink "? :)
>
>Same sort as say /'EnifINK/ and /'sVmfINK/.  I shall hear these words again
>today - but I'd better not name the burks as some are colleagues I work
>with (or should I say 'wiv'?).
Well, there's a thing. I'll have to listen for it more carefully.
Is 'wif' a possibility? Does -f/-v vary somewhat like -T/-D in this
word? (Many, around here at least, say /wID/ as well as /wIT/.)

>One also hears /nVfIn/ and /nVfn=/ and, strangely, /nV?n/.
/nV?n/ or perhaps /nV??n/ is farily common here. It's been made into
an oh so American pun by a cereal company that produces Nut 'n' Honey.
        Wife: What are eating, dear?
        Man: /nV??n hVnni/

"Honey", of course, being a spousal pet name as well as bee spit.

>In fact in pre-19th cent. English, final unstressed -ing had become -In in
>practically everyone's speech and is still one of the marks of
>"aristocratic" speech (those who spend their time huntin', shootin' &
>fishin') and, of course, of 'lower class' speech.  But the spread of
>universal education and the rise of the middle classes in the 19th cent.
>led to the restoration of the "correct sound" (i.e. a spelling
>pronunciation).
>
>The /-INk/ pronunciations seem to have arisen from an attempt by those who
>habitually said -In wanting to "talk posh" - it seems to have become
>established in certain areas.
I see.

Padraic.

>Ray.