Print

Print


I stand corrected, though I suggest that it's Cockney that's changed rather than Londoners adopting another accent or dialect.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 28 Mar 2014, at 00:37, And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Jeff Daniel Rollin-Jones, On 28/03/2014 00:04:
>> No, it means that *initial* /h/ is not a phoneme in the Cockney
>> dialect of English; but you can't, for example, miss out the /h/ in
>> such words as "ahoy".
> 
> I don't know if that's true for Cockney; I seldom get to hear Cockney, because demotic London speech has mostly departed so drastically from Cockney. (I live in NW London.)
> 
> Elsewhere, tho, there are aitchless dialects in which "ahoy" is simply not a possible word; it would be "oy" if it exists in the dialect. "Alcohol" is variously /alkol/ or [log in to unmask] Broad Scouse and many Yorkshire dialects are examples. But a particularly interesting one is broad Manchester (& occurring elsewhere in Lancashire) in which you would "see an ox" but "see orse" (i.e. neither "see an orse" nor "see a horse"): that looks as if the syntactic syntagm "a"+"horse" is phonologically /@ho:s/, with /@h/ receiving a zero realization: [A:s]. Thus whereas "ahead" in Scouse is [Ed] /ed/, "ahead" in Manchester might be [Ed] /@hed/...
> 
> It's true tho, that there are dialects (many Lancashire; perhaps Cockney if your report is correct), in which /h/ appears only morpheme-internally following a schwa, i.e. in words such as "ahoy". This correlates to quite a high degree with whether /hy/ is a possible onset: in truly aitchless dialects it isn't, while in dialects that merely drop /h/ when it would constitute a morpheme-initial onset it is.
> 
> --And.
> 
>>> On 27 Mar 2014, at 19:34, Siva Kalyan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Whoa! Does that mean /h/ isn't a phoneme in English (or is only marginally
>>> one)?
>>> 
>>> Reminds me of the "demonstration" that h and eng are allophones of each
>>> other...
>>> 
>>> Siva
>>> 
>>> 2014年3月28日金曜日、Jeff Daniel Rollin-Jones<[log in to unmask]>さんは書きました:
>>> 
>>>> That's a good way of putting it, yes. Missing /h/, for example, works
>>>> because there's no "real" word "orse", "ospital", etc to compete with.