Another "$100 Misunderstanding" (1)

[Wilson Gray]

On Aug 13, 2004, at 5:48 PM, Dennis R. Preston wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Dennis R. Preston" <preston at MSU.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: Another "$100 Misunderstanding" (1)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> I think I noted that it was my nonstandard speaking Milwaukee wife
> who said puh-JAE-muh (rather than my correct pu-JA-muh. (Sorry for
> returning to sarcastic crap about who's standard-nonstandard. Old
> dog, new tricks, all that shit.)
>
> What's odd about about a stress alternation bwteen the n. of
> XN-vuh-lowp and the v. of xn_VEL-up? (I put an X for the vowels which
> show regular I/E alternation before nasals, as is well known in all
> southern and southern influenced speech, assuming that that is not
> the point here.) In my case, for example, I have n. AHN-vuh-lowp and
> v. In-VEL-uhp.
>
> dInIs

I agree with you entirely as to the pronunciation of "envelope" the
noun vs. the pronunciation of "envelope" the verb. What my stepfather
did, apparently, was to derive the noun from the verb, so that, for
him, the sole distinction between the pronunciation of the noun and the
pronunciation of the verb was the placement of primary stress. He used
neither "AHN vuh lope" nor "IN vuh lope" nor "EN vuh lope." He used "IN
veh lup" where eh = e as in get and u = schwa. It was like changing the
pronunciation of "develop" to "DEvelop" and using that instead of
"development."

I didn't mean to appear to be taking you to task wrt to pajamas. For
me, both forms are equally valid, to the extent that, in real-life
conversation, I never notice any difference. I'd have to ask my wife to
know which she uses, despite the fact that I've been listening to her
talk for a quarter-century. Hmm. That's rather clumsily put, but you
get my meaning. And, FWIW, I use aesc in pronouncing "jammies.";-)

-Wilson

>
>
>
>> On Aug 13, 2004, at 1:51 PM, Dennis R. Preston wrote:
>>
>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>> -----------------------
>>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>> Poster:       "Dennis R. Preston" <preston at MSU.EDU>
>>> Subject:      Re: Another "$100 Misunderstanding" (1)
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --
>>> --------
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm sure larry is right that there are right-minded, idiomatic
>>> "shat" speakers (who are not "whoomers" at all).
>>>
>>> It's funny how the vernacular forms of one variety speak strike
>>> speakers of other varieties as posh (never funny how they strike
>>> others as dull, dim-witted, etc...). I have, quite idiomatically and
>>> from working-class input, an /a/ in the second syllable of "pajamas,"
>>> for example, which my Milwaukee 'puh jae muh' speaking wife loves to
>>> twit me about. Now that I think about it, she also likes to get on my
>>> case about my /a/ in the first syllable of 'envelope.' Both strike
>>> her as phony and/or posh (if one may use 'and/or' between 'phony' and
>>> 'posh').
>>>
>>> dInIs
>>
>> dInIs, you say "puh jae muh" and dare admit it publicly? For shame!;-)
>> However, I'm not sure how to characterize someone who thinks that
>> there's something phony about the pronunciation, "on vuh lope," which
>> is clearly the preferred - by me, any way - pronunciation.;-) BTW, my
>> late stepfather, a native of Saint louis, though of Arkansas ancestry,
>> made this odd distinction in his speech: noun = "IN veh lup"; verb =
>> "in VEH lup." Of course, there's nothing of interest in his verb form.
>> But I've always felt that he was the only English-speaker on earth or
>> in Saint Louis, at least, to use that peculiar pronunciation of the
>> noun. And it's also odd that he was able to resist all his life the
>> pressure to to switch to one or the other of the "correct"
>> pronunciations.
>>
>> -Wilson
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> At 12:49 PM -0400 8/13/04, Dennis R. Preston wrote:
>>>>>> Neither of these corresponds to  my 'shit' which is just like my
>>>>>> 'hit' - hit, hit, hit and shit, shit, shit.
>>>>>
>>>>> dInIs
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: Like Wilson, I was also flabbergrasted by 'shat' and also use
>>>>> it
>>>>> to poke fun, although I'm not sure at who (maybe at people who
>>>>> would
>>>>> say "at whom"?).
>>>>>
>>>> I've always had "shat" (for the preterit; not sure about the
>>>> participle) but never regarded it as in the same category as "whom".
>>>> It is a nice, strong verb, after all.  For those interested in other
>>>> variants, see my "Spitten Image" paper, p. 44 of AS 79:1 for some
>>>> 19th c. cites on the participial form "shitten", including the
>>>> evocative "shitten-end-up" ('upside-down'; 'having a foetid
>>>> breath').
>>>>
>>>> larry
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dennis R. Preston
>>> University Distinguished Professor
>>> Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic,
>>>         Asian and African Languages
>>> Wells Hall A-740
>>> Michigan State University
>>> East Lansing, MI 48824-1027 USA
>>> Office: (517) 353-0740
>>> Fax: (517) 432-2736
>
>
> --
> Dennis R. Preston
> University Distinguished Professor
> Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic,
>         Asian and African Languages
> Wells Hall A-740
> Michigan State University
> East Lansing, MI 48824-1027 USA
> Office: (517) 353-0740
> Fax: (517) 432-2736
>