Different dialects, same error

[Wilson Gray]

On Sep 5, 2004, at 9:54 AM, James A. Landau wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "James A. Landau" <JJJRLandau at AOL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: Different dialects, same error
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> In a message dated  Sat, 4 Sep 2004 22:47:13 -0400,  Wilson Gray
> <wilson.gray at RCN.COM> writes:
>
>>   as a result of a
>>  phonological rule of BE that causes Mc/Mac always to be pronounced as
>>  [maek], as in "M[ae]c Cracklin," "M[ae]c Arthur," I mistakenly
>>  *assumed* that McBrown, pronounced M[ae]c Brown in BE, was his
>> surname.
>>  That is, there is no difference in pronunciation between "Johnny
>>  McBrown" and "Johnny Mack Brown."
>
> When you say "no difference in pronunciation" between "McBrown" and
> "Mack
> Brown", are you saying that in BE the "Mc-" or "Mac-" prefix receives
> the same
> stress as the middle name "Mack" standing along?

Exactly. It's a very widespread, if not universal, feature of BE as
spoken by "the real soul brother," to borrow a term from Richard Pryor.
I remember my Texas grandparents speaking of General "Mack Arthur."
There's the Missouri-born blues singer, "Jimmy Mack Cracklin." There's
my North Carolina-born buddy, "David Mack Lane."

>   That is, would a speaker of BE say " 'maek 'braun" rather than "
> maek 'braun" for "McBrown"?

However, as your intuition seems to be telling you, when a Mc/Mac name
is spoken in isolation, there's sufficient difference in stress and/or
intonation - or something or other - on the prefix that it's possible
to tell, e.g. "M(a)cLane" from "Mack Lane" without having it spelled
out.

> The other possibility, that in BE a single-syllable middle name would
> be unstressed, I would
> find a little surprising.
>
>           - James A. Landau
>

You are correct, sir.

-Wilson Gray