Another "$100 Misunderstanding" (1)

[Dennis R. Preston]

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



>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