anythink

[bwald]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I accept Max Wheeler's observations on "anythink".  From what can be
gathered so far it reflects a variant pronunciation of final unstressed
-ing [velar nasal] in parts of England, esp the Southeast and parts of the
Midlands, Australia, and perhaps most notably New Zealand.  In most areas
it seems to be a low intensity variant originating perhaps in Southeastern
England in the late 18th century.  It does not seem to occur at all in
North America (if we discount ZsaZsa Gabor's famous "darlink" and such
things coming from languages that do not have a velar nasal but devoice
word-final obstruents), or in South Africa.  Its sociolinguistic status
seems to vary greatly in areas where it appears, from unobstrusive to
stereotyped.  Stereotype is suggested by Schaufele's earlier message
implying that it occurs in cartoons (the old Andy Capp? -- before they
stopped using stereotypes for Andy's Cockney speech -- I don't remember it
there, only consistent -in' for -ing, now withdrawn presumably as
"classist").  I would expect it to have reached stereotyped status in New
Zealand, whether or not it appears in cartoons. In low intensity areas, it
may be receding or it may be waiting for sociolinguistic conditions to
change in order to become more prominent.  Time will tell.
 
Questions remains about its origin and historical trajectory in any
particular area.  Although Max suggested that /th/ (theta) > f implies
-ink, I did not hear (or record) it in Cockney East London, among
consistent th > f speakers, though it may because it is or has become so
low intensity, and  may have formerly been more common there.  (Wheeler's
suggestion of an implication between "f" and "-ink" may rest on a
stereotyped "nuffink" varying with "nuffin", though "noTHink" is clearly
the reflex in some areas.)  Possibly a recesssion in the London area fits
in with its non-occurrence in South Africa, against its occurrence in
Australia and NZ, since all of these Southern Hemisphere varieties are
unquestionably Southern British based, but South African English was more
recently formed, and even -in' is uncommon there, in contrast with most of
the English-speaking world (apart from the so-called "new Englishes", which
raise other issues about -ing/-in').  (NB this is not to suggest that -in'
is newer than -ing, far from it since some scholars have suggested -in'
owes its origin to the OE -end participial suffix, but that South African
English reflects some narrowing of variation in source dialects of English,
esp with regard to -ing/in' variation -- whether in the source or in South
Africa remains hard to determine -- SA has, of course, evolved regional and
social variants of its own.)
 
With regard to NZ, -ink's prominence among urban Maoris suggested to me
that they may be responsible for further developing it there, but I do not
know enough about NZ speech to be sure it is less frequent among Anglo than
Maori speakers, if social class can be controlled.  It certainly did not
strike me among the non-Maori NZ speakers I have heard, though I would
suppose that some of them sometimes use it (and maybe working class
Euro-NZers also show it prominently, Anglo or not).  As for ultimate
origins, it is also not clear whether it began as rural or urban in
Britain, since dialect sampling by Wright and even later focuses on rural
speakers, while these observations are no earlier than those reporting it
in London.  If it came to London from the countryside, say, in the late
18th c it may have already had some unconscious sociolinguistic import,
though the precise value of that import would most likely change in an
urban context, as it no doubt has in New Zealand.
 
Finally, it remains unclear whether the emergence of the -ink variant was
phonologically related to any other sound changes in any area, and whether
it was or is currently lexically restricted to the pronominal-like "-thing"
words, i.e., any-/no-/some-thing, so that noone (or in some -ink areas
noone) would say "they're still eatink" or "it's stuck on the ceilink" or
"what a darlink!" etc.  According to Shopen's observations in Canberra,
Australia it was largely restricted to those 3 words, and therefore could
not be seen as part of the major "ing / in' " variation, but only as a
bleeder of it for the 3 words in question.  Shopen actually reported 16
examples of -ink amidst 1660 examples of that variant, -ing, and -in', and
those 3 words account for 14 of the examples.  The others were goink and
hopink, one example each.  Thus, total occurrence of -ink is not impressive
in Canberra, but its lexical bias to the -thing words is.  For those
unfamiliar with close observation of spoken language, it is not unusual to
find some strange "nonce"-like pronunciation of any sound with a frequency
of 1/1000.  It is meaningless for sound change, though some may anticipate
a sound change which will some day happen, or which has been attested
elsewhere.  So, for example, some American speaker may produce an -ink
pronunciation of -ing with a frequency of 1/1000 chances, but that does not
tell us anything about the chances for an -ing > -ink sound change in any
American English dialect.
 
-ink is worth further investigation, but except for a few areas where it
seems to be lively I don't see much payoff for major research, other than
to demonstrate that relatively low intensity sound changes (those much less
frequent than more conservative, e.g., -ing, or competing variants, e.g.,
-in') may survive without changing status for a considerable period of
time, and that not all such sound changes survive to make it into the
Neogrammarian big-time.                         -Benji