<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction</TITLE>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE type=text/css>BLOCKQUOTE {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-TOP: 0px
}
DL {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-TOP: 0px
}
UL {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-TOP: 0px
}
OL {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-TOP: 0px
}
LI {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-TOP: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The phonological contraction is, however, well
motivated generally (the to-contraction cases). In general function words like
'to' encliticize, as we all probably know. What is not motivated
phonologically are the failures to encliticize and the failures to have a
nonenclitic variant.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But the idea that we are seeing change seems like
it is on the right path.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>There are many idio/dialectical differences in
this matter, however, that need to be studied systematically to produce
generalizations with statistical significance, especially since, as Spike
observed, these are at least partially sociolinguistic phenomena.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dan</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>