Return of the minimal pairs

[Douglas G Kilday]

Larry Trask (31 May 2001) wrote:

>I might also point out that, in the US, the word 'vehicle' is a traditional
>shibboleth for spotting country bumpkins: if you pronounce an /h/ in
>'vehicle', you're a bumpkin.  Even the folk singer Arlo Guthrie, hardly the
>personification of cosmopolitan sophistication, used this word to great effect
>on one of his records to identify a southern policeman as a bumpkin.

It's noteworthy here that Varro reports <veha> as a rustic pronunciation of
<via>: "rustici etiam quoque viam veham appellant, et vellam non villam"
(R.R. I.2.14).

>Incidentally, I've just noticed that John Wells reports that 33% of his
>American panel preferred the pronunciation of 'vehicle' with /h/, and a
>further five percent actually put the main stress on the second syllable.
>Sheesh.  Either John is using a remarkably catholic panel, or something has
>happened here since I left home.  Do any of you Yanks out there *really*
>pronounce an /h/ in 'vehicle'?

I don't, unless I'm trying to imitate a rustic stereotype. However, I
recently heard 'vehicle' with an /h/ in the smooth, cosmopolitan
pronunciation of one of the "CNN Headline News" announcers. It may be
gaining ground.

I've never heard 'vehicle' with the main stress on the second syllable. This
must be influenced by 'vehicular'. It might be interesting to test the 5% on
'mandible' and 'crucible'. Would 'mandibular' influence 'mandible'? Since
there is no *crucibular, would 'crucible' follow the others by analogy? What
about 'icicle' and 'bicycle'?