Charles Doyle cdoyle at UGA.EDU
Tue May 22 11:45:45 UTC 2007

Of course, we find syllabic schwa insertion (or retention) in participles like "grappling," "babbling," and "grumbling," but those are explainable (partly, at least) by the pronunciation of the base forms. There seems to be no tendency to pronounce "complexity" as "comp(@)lexity" or "complete" as "comp(@)lete."


---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 12:30:05 -0400
>From: James Harbeck <jharbeck at SYMPATICO.CA>
>Subject: Re: "parap(@)legic"
>>I know I also insert a vowel sound there. But now that I know it's naughty, I will continue to do so :)
>Are you aware of other places in your dialect (or idiolect?) where you similarly insert a schwa between [p] and [l]? That is, is there a documentable transformation pattern?
>I wonder whether this particular one isn't lurking the background formany English speakers, given that it's quite common to say "puh-leeze" as an emphatic form of "please." I would guess that it's coming from the aspiration of the [p]. But how far does that go? Could we, in response to "The bride will wear plaid," say "puh-lad?!" How about with [k] -- I don't think I normally hear "kuh-lose the door!" On the other hand, the [k] and [l] are often separated in "nuclear".
>Thoughts on a general pattern?
>James Harbeck.

The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

More information about the Ads-l mailing list