LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.20 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West) Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

20 December 2005 * Volume 07
=======================================================================

From: Kevin and Cheryl Caldwell <kevin.caldwell1963 at verizon.net>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.20 (03) [E]

> From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.20 (02) [E]
>
> Mmmh, I'd say that it's nothing more  a phonetic rule that [v] before [t]
> becomes [f]. You don't haf to do anything for it, it just happens
> automatically. Just as <s> won't be pronounced as [z] before voiceless
> consonants: in "it is terrible", normal pronunciation of <is> [Iz],
> becomes [Is]. In normal speech no one would say haV to or iZ terrible.
> But I expected that to be common knowledge here...
>
> Ingmar

_No one_ would say that? I say it (iZ terrible, that is) - devoicing the /s/ 
in "is" just sounds weird to this native English speaker (however, when you 
say it as "that's" it is always devoiced no matter what the next sound is). 
I also only say /haf to/ in the sense of must. When I say something like "I 
have two of those," (even with the emphasis on "have") the /v/ is voiced. 
Again, I make the /v/ voiceless only in the expression "have to" meaning 
"must".

> From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.20 (02) [E]
>
> A lot of pronunciation has little effect on understanding; for example
> many
> Europeans have problems with both voiced and unvoiced  "th" sound in "the,
> think, w! ith" etc.  So do some English people, but "wiss" or "wizz" from
> many French and Germans, or "wit","wid" and "wiv" from different speakers
> in
> the British Isles are all perfectly understandable.
>
> Paul

"Wit" and "wid" for "with" are also common in some US dialects.

> From: Philip Ernest Barber <pbarber at loc.gov>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.20 (02) [E]
>
> For my part, I am sure Yasuji is right. I have noticed, however, in my own
> usage as a native speaker that if much emphasis is placed on "have" in the
> sense of "must," then it is usually pronounced with the voiced consonant.
> Ex.: "Excuse me, but I really HAVE to go now!."  Otherwise, one would say
> "I
> haff to go now."  Do others share this perception?

I say "haff to" even with emphasizing it.  Well, actually, I'm probably just 
as likely to say, "I've gotta" for "I must".

Kevin Caldwell

----------

From: Paul Tatum <ptatum at blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.20 (03) [E]

> From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.20 (02) [E]
>
> Mmmh, I'd say that it's nothing more  a phonetic rule that [v] before [t]
> becomes [f]. You don't haf to do anything for it, it just happens
> automatically.

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Grammar
>
> Hi, Ingmar!
>
> Earlier in the discussion, I had proposed the assimilation theory too,
> but I was told that, in certain dialects at least, "have" in the sense
> of "possess" *always* ends with [z] (i.e., also before voiceless
> consonants) while in the sense of "must" before "to" it ends with [s].
> This may indicate the existence of separate lexemes (hence the
> controversy about "could of" for "could have," which could be a similar
> case), or it might indicate some sort of more complex morphophonological
> process (possibly removal of the word boundary between "have" and "to":
> ##have#to## -> [hævtə] > ##have$to## -> ["hæftə]).

I also assimilate the /v/ of 'have' and the /s/ of 'has' according to
the following sound. Isn't 'have' meaning 'must' always followed by the
'to' of the infinitive of the main verb, as in 'have to see'? So it is
unvoiced in my normal speech. Does the fact that 'have to' as an
auxiliary is less stressed than 'have' as a main verb ('possess') have
any relevance?

I think one of the major factors for the 'of' = 'have' confusion is that
there is the series 'could have' 'should have' 'would have' - the
similar semantics and the similar phonetic shapes "bind" the -ould and
the unstressed 'have' together into a unit, so the final syllable
becomes disassociated from its origin. The fact that 'have' is
invariable in this construction helps - in normal speech it's always
[kUd at v] or [k at d@v] (with [v] or [f] again) and it's only when you
emphasise it (or spell it) that you are faced with the choice of 'could
have' or 'could of'.(stick to could've)

Paul Tatum. 

==============================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
======================================================================