LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.20 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West) Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

20 December 2005 * Volume 04
=======================================================================

From: Justin Renquist <justinrenquist at hotmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.20 (02) [E]


I think that technically what you were taught is incorrect for formal , more 
deliberate speech. I think it's accepted in most circles for casual, 
informal speech. At least in the US.

I'm trying to think what the case would be in Britain, Canada or other 
anglophone countries like Australia, NZ etc.. It may be similar? Can anyone 
elaborate?

----------

From: Leslie Decker <leslie at volny.cz>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.20 (03) [E]

> From: Philip Ernest Barber <pbarber at loc.gov>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.20 (02) [E]
>
> For my part, I am sure Yasuji is right. I have noticed, however, in my
> own usage as a native speaker that if much emphasis is placed on
> "have" in the sense of "must," then it is usually pronounced with the
> voiced consonant. Ex.: "Excuse me, but I really HAVE to go now!."
> Otherwise, one would say "I haff to go now."  Do others share this
> perception?
>
For me, 'have' in the sense of 'must' always ends in a voiceless
consonant, even when I am emphasizing it.  In fact, I've always thought
of pronouncing it with a /v/ to be a bit of an affectation, although
that's nothing against anyone here, of course ;-).  I chalked it up to
the difference that someone else mentioned:  one was related to 'hoeven'
in Dutch, and one to 'hebben,' although I admit I've been too lazy to
research it properly. :-)  However, I was just thinking about
substituting 'have got to' for 'have to,' in which the end consonant is
voiced, and now I'm not so sure about anything.  Is that voiced because
it's underlyingly voiced, or because of assimlation with the /g/, or
because of analogy with with 'have got' meaning 'possess' or 'have
received?'

Leslie Decker

==============================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
======================================================================