Hoarse, four, mourning etc.

Sat Jul 3 15:00:33 UTC 2010

At 2:57 AM -0700 7/3/10, Margaret Lee wrote:
>
>How extensive is the use of message as a verb?

Not inextensive, judging from google hits.  "Texted" is a somewhat
more frequent past tense verb form than "messaged", but they both
have lots of hits.

LH

>Messager certainly sounds more natural than messenger in trems of
>texting, but I can't see a real difference between 'sending' a
>message and 'carrying' a message. In both cases a message is
>transmitted.
>
>-- Margaret Lee
>
>
>--- On Fri, 7/2/10, Mark Mandel <thnidu at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>
>From: Mark Mandel <thnidu at GMAIL.COM>
>Subject: Re: Hoarse, four, mourning etc.
>To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>Date: Friday, July 2, 2010, 3:01 PM
>
>
>I use "4" for "for" in text-messaging, and AFAIK I don't pronounce them
>differently, apart from stress-related difference.
>
>Sideslipping:  Interesting that you use "messengers" here. I would use
>"messagers", from the (recent?) verb "to message" 'to send a message',
>reserving "messenger" for 'one who carries a message'.
>
>m a m
>
>On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Margaret Lee <mlee303 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>  Do you think that text messengers, advertisers and others who use the
>>  number 4 in place of 'for' make a distinction in the pronunciation of four
>>  and for?
>>
>>  --Margaret Lee
>>
>>  --- On Fri, 7/2/10, Paul Johnston <paul.johnston at WMICH.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>  That just indicates that the rule might be more general than I
>>  figured.=A0 Historically, both had Middle English /Or/ ( > NORTH), not
>>  ME /O:r/ (like bore, store, score, more), /OUr/ (like four), or /
>>  uurC/ (like court, course) or any other originally long or
>>  diphthongal vowel giving you modern FORCE.=A0 Actually, thinking about
>>  it, force itself belongs to this same subclass--it's from OF force,
>>  with /OrC/ and a labial preceding.=A0 The French origin has nothing to
>>  do with the development--board, which is native, also joins FORCE,
>>  though there are dialects which lengthen /Ord/ to /O:rd/ (and even /
>>  o:rd/) in ME, and labials don't condition this lengthening or any
>>  raising.
>>
>>  Paul Johnston
>>
>>
>>  On Jul 1, 2010, at 6:25 PM, David Wake wrote:
>>  >
>>  > I may be misunderstanding your email, but Wells lists both "port" and
>>  > "pork" among the FORCE set, not the NORTH set.
>>  >
>>  > David
>>  >
>>  > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Paul Johnston
>>  > <paul.johnston at wmich.edu> wrote:>
>>  >>
>>  >> Does any dialect of American English have a rule which shifts
>>  >> historical NORTH words to FORCE when a labial precedes?=A0 This would
>>  >> affect morning/mourning (and, possibly for/four), but also words like
>>  >> pork and port.=A0 This is a really old rule (late ME/Older Scots) in
>>  >> Scots and Northern English dialects, where you get [o:] or [U@]
>>  >> instead of [O:], in both rhotic and non-rhotic dialects.
>>  >> I've heard Southern and AAVE [poUk~poU?] for pork anyway, but do you
>>  >> get other cases of this?=A0 And does it occur among New England white
>>  >> speakers?
>>  >>
>>
>>  >> On Jun 29, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Gordon, Matthew J. wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >>>
>>  >>> I don't think boar/bore and board/bored are part of this historical
>>  >>> contrast. Boar, bore and board are listed by Wells (1982) as
>>  >>> members of the FORCE group, deriving from long open o in Middle
>>  >>> English. Bored isn't listed there.
>>  >>>
>>  >>> St. Louis traditionally maintains the contrast including between
>>  >>> 'for' & 'four,' 'morning' & 'mourning,' 'or' & 'ore,' etc. The
>>  >>> Atlas of North American English has acoustic evidence to illustrate
>>  >>> the contrast.
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>> On 6/29/10 8:36 AM, "Geoff Nathan" <geoffnathan at WAYNE.EDU> wrote:
>>  >>>
>>  >>> As others have noted, the 'horse:hoarse' contrast has been
>>  >>> extensively discussed on this list, and in the dialectological
>>  >>> literature. It is one of a small number of similar examples
>>  >>> ('boar:bore, board:bored' for example) that continue to contrast in
>>  >>> parts of the midwest and southern US. A competent discussion can be
>  > >>> found here
>>  >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-
>>  >>> language_vowel_changes_before_historic_r#Horse-hoarse_merger
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>> unfortunately there are no sound samples for the contrast. The OED
>>  >>> says that RP still distinguishes them as a contrast between long
>>  >>> open-o and open-o schwa. I believe this has disappeared, however.
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>> The other two (for:four, morning:mourning) are identical in all
>>  >>> contemporary dialects I'm aware of, and their etymologies suggest
>>  >>> that they fell together long ago (the former), or were never
>>  >>> different (the latter, at least from Middle English times). There
>>  >>> is some dispute about this, however.
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Geoff
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Geoffrey S. Nathan
>>  >>> Faculty Liaison, C&IT
>>  >>> and Associate Professor, Linguistics Program
>>  >>> +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT)
>>  >>> +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics)
>>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

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