--- Joe <[log in to unmask]> schrieb:

> Peter Bleackley wrote:
> 
> > Let's improvise a Future English by throwing sound
> and grammar changes 
> > into an ongoing conversation. If you wanna join
> in, reply to this 
> > thread obeying the previously proposed changes.
> Every so often, 
> > somebody shouts out "Change!" and the next person
> to reply gets to 
> > propose a new change. The first change is
> >
> > All possible cliticisations become mandatory.
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you mean by that-  could
> you elaborate?

I think what he means is that all pronouns and other
such function words that _can_ be jammed together,
must. My dialect (standard American English with
strong Southern elements) has pretty much a full set
of object clitics, in the most informal registers:

me [mi:] --> [mI] (very weakly cliticized; other
speakers can say [m@], but this isn't very common and
is somewhat frowned-upon)

you [ju:] --> [j@]

him [hIm] --> [m=]

her [hr=] --> [r=]

it [It] --> no change, but can trigger sandhi of final
[d] or [t] to [4]

them [DEm] --> [m=]

us [Vs] --> no change, but it can also trigger sandhi
of final [d] or [t] to [4]

Other dialects have similar features, but only in
certain writings are these features written out
orthographically --- "I went to the store with 'em
yesterday" for "I went to the store with them
yesterday".

When run together in informal speech, these pronouns
can affix onto prepositions or verbs, so when I say "I
saw her yesterday", I pronounce 'saw her' as something
like [sA:r=] rather than ["sA:.hr=]. 'With you' can be
pronounced as ["wIt.j@] in its unmarked form; I'd hear
the expected [wiT."ju:] as emphasizing the 'you', like
'he was with *YOU*?!?'.

To explain what I mean by sandhi, take a phrase like
'working at it'. You'd expect to hear something like
["wr=.kIN.,&t.It], but what you actually get is
["wr=.kIN.,&.4It], because of the rule in AmE that
makes intervocalic [t] and [d] into [4].

Now, this may seem unremarkable, but it could have
interesting effects on the evolution of the language,
if allowed to proceed apace. These clitics could
become acceptable at higher registers, until they
become a standard part of English.

It's also becoming more common to hear intervocalic
[k] become [g] in certain environments; I have a hard
time remembering the proper spelling of 'significant',
because I always pronounce it as [s1g."nI.fI.,gn=t]
--- I often misspell it as '*signifigant'.

This voicing can proceed across word boundaries, like
the [t/d] --> [4] rule; I've been catching myself say
(please excuse the vulgarity, ladies and gentlemen)
'fuck it all' as ["fV.gI.,4A:L].

'Work at it' could possibly be ["wr=.g&.,4It]...

This voicing's much less pervasive, though; if I heard
someone say something like 'lock it' as ["lA.gIt], I'd
see it as 'lazy' or 'sloppy'.

Just some fuel for the fire; I'm too busy with classes
and work to contribute anything much more to this relay.


	

	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de