"parap(@)legic"

[James Harbeck]

>I know I also insert a vowel sound there. But now that I know it's naughty,
>I will continue to do so :)

Are you aware of other places in your dialect (or idiolect?) where
you similarly insert a schwa between [p] and [l]? That is, is there a
documentable transformation pattern?

I wonder whether this particular one isn't lurking the background for
many English speakers, given that it's quite common to say
"puh-leeze" as an emphatic form of "please." I would guess that it's
coming from the aspiration of the [p]. But how far does that go?
Could we, in response to "The bride will wear plaid," say "puh-lad?!"
How about with [k] -- I don't think I normally hear "kuh-lose the
door!" On the other hand, the [k] and [l] are often separated in
"nuclear".

Thoughts on a general pattern?

James Harbeck.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org