LL-L "Phonology" 2006.03.12 (05) [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)
=======================================================================

   L O W L A N D S - L * 12 March 2006 * Volume 05
=======================================================================

From: David Barrow <davidab at telefonica.net.pe>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2006.03.12 (03) [E]

> From: Heather Rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2006.03.11 (02) [E]
>
> Message text written by INTERNET:lowlands-l at LOWLANDS-L.NET
>
>> distinction between aweful and offal<
>
> I would pronounce awful as 'or- full'
>
> and offal as 'off -ll'
>
> and aweful with the slightest hesitation  between the awe and the ful
> and a
> greater emphasis on 'awe'
>
> Heather

Heather,

Are you a non-rhotic speaker or do you have an intrusive 'r' in 'awful'?

David Barrow

----------

From: David Barrow <davidab at telefonica.net.pe>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2006.03.12 (01) [E]

> From: Felix Hülsey <felix.huelsey at gmx.de>
> Subject: LL-L Phonology
>
> Dear Lowlanders,
>
> Ron wrote:
>
>> While in pretty much all Modern English dialects the <e> in past
>> particial <-ed> is not sounded -- including in "loved" [lVvd] -- it is
>> sounded in most people's varieties in the word "beloved" [bI"lVvId] ~
>> [b@"lVv at d] (though I have heard some people pronounce it [bI"lVvd]).
>>
>> What's going on here?  Obviously, "beloved" is a marked item in most
>
> (...)
>
>> What do you think about this one, folks?  Furthermore, can you think of
>> similar cases, preferably within the realm of the Lowlands?
>
> What about "blessed"? My Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary gives the
> pronunciations ['bles at d] and [blest]. Do those two versions have
> different meanings, or is one of them considered odd or archaic? Just
> asking.
>
> Greetings from Cologne
> Felix Hülsey
>
> ----------
>
> From: Heather Rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
> Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2006.03.11 (045) [E]
>
> Message text written by INTERNET:lowlands-l at LOWLANDS-L.NET
>
>> "beloved"<
>
> He was well beloved      ( lUvd)
>
> he was my beloved         (lov-ed)
>
> the difference between adjective use and a noun?
>
> Heather

The e is always pronounced in 'beloved' when used predicatively

David Barrow

> From: Kevin Caldwell <kevin.caldwell1963 at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: LL-L "Phonology" 2006.03.11 (07) [E]
>
>> From: David Barrow <davidab at telefonica.net.pe>
>> Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2006.03.11 (045) [E]
>>
>>> * Here's an example of stages or levels, all three dialectical
>>> versions of "garage":
>>>  Non-nativized:  [g@"rQ:Z]**
>>>  Semi-nativized: ["gærQZ]
>>>  Nativized: ["gærIdZ]
>>>
>> I have never heard 'garage' pronounced with [Q]. It's usually with
>> [A(:)]. I myself am nativised.
>>
>>> Interestingly, this non-nativized version is prevalent in American
>>> English, while the other two seem to be prevalent in non-American
>>> English.
>>
> Some Americans even jokingly pronounce 'garbage' as [gar"bA:Z] (sorry
> if that's not quite the correct way to write that - I'm not too
> familiar with this way of indicating pronunciation and I'm not a
> linguist).
>
>>>> Whereas with 'charade' it's the opposite
>>>
>> [S@"rA:d] UK
>> [tS@"reId] US
>
> The US versionis actually [S@"reId]. I've never heard an American
> pronounce it [tS@"reId].

OK

> Having said that, I'd like to add something that I've noticed in
> recent years.  More and more Americans seem to be pronouncing [C] like
> [S], so that a word like 'check' comes out sounding as if it were
> spelled 'sheck'. I've also noticed a lot of Americans, especially in
> the news media, pronouncing the letter 'j' like [Z] rather than [dZ],
> especially in words and names from Arabic, like 'al-Jazeera' or 'jihad'.
>
> Kevin Caldwell
>
My EFL students here in Peru must have picked this up from American
English speakers. They often pronounce English 'ch' as [S] rather than
[tS] even though [S] is not found natively in Spanish and [tS] is.

David Barrow

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Phonology
>
> Thanks, folks, and hi again, Dave!
>
> Sorry.  I'm still not done with this puppy after all.  ;-)  I think it
> needs some tweaking.
>
> You wrote, Dave:
>
>> past participle used predicatively v past participle used as
>> adjective/noun
>> she is beloved of all v dearly beloved (guests)
>
> I now believe that we are dealing with an interesting area of
> ("adjective-like") past participles (1) versus genuine adjectives (2).
>
> Examples:
>
>   (1) That sort of behavior is learn(e)d.
>   (2) That scholar is quite learnEd.
>   (1) learn(e)d behavior
>   (2) learnEd scholar
> Nominalized adjective (adjectival noun):
>   This goes for the uninform(e)d and the learnEd alike.
>
>   (1) That president was anything but lov(e)d at his time.
>   (2) That president was the most belovEd one at his time.
>   (1) the least lov(e)d president
>   (2) the most belovEd grandmother
> Nominalized adjective (adjectival noun):
>   The least lov(e)d among the nurses helped
>   the patient to write to his belovEd.
>
> So my latest "findings" are that type 2 "masquerades" as past
> participle but is really an adjective in Modern English, though it is
> derived from a past participle at an earlier stage of English (when
> the /@/ was always sounded). In other words, they are petrified past
> participles that can only be used as adjectives (and as adjectival
> nouns), that are not generated morphophonologically but are lexically
> indexed "as is."
>
> Perhaps "wicked" illustrates this best: there is no verb *"to wick" in
> Modern English (except as an apparently unrelated curling term).  So
> "wicked" is indexed as indivisible /wik at d/, not as divisible */wik- at d/
> (as in /dent- at d/ "dented").
>
> Regards,
> Reinhard/Ron

wicked
    c.1275, earlier wick (12c.), apparently an adj. use of O.E. wicca
"wizard" (see wicca). For evolution, cf. wretched from wretch. Slang
ironic sense of "wonderful" first attested 1920, in F. Scott Fitzgerald.

wretched
    c.1200, wrecched, an irregular formation from wrecche "wretch" (see
wretch). Cf. also wicked.

I think analogy plays a part here. Past participles are used as
adjectives so it was felt they needed -ed to make them more adjective
like. In consequence -ed became an adjective forming suffix with no
intervening verb to past participle stage: talent - talented, beard -
bearded.

David Barrow 

==============================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.
======================================================================