Re: He, she and it against hem
- From: sanlosinst@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 3 Aug 2005 05:23:57 -0700
António Marques wrote:
> Aidan Kehoe wrote:
> >> Incidentally, can anyone give a sensible spelling for «'em», now we
> >> know it's not a reduction of 'them'?
>
> > and I wouldn't be in a hurry to rule out the analysis of it as a
> > reduction of "them," today. My argument would be a lot stronger if I
> > could rustle up an example of [æt] for "that", but right now that's
> > not happening.
>
> In fact, english doesn't seem to exhibit a lot of reductions of th-.
Estuary English (a lower class dialect spreading out from London)
usually changes voiced _th_ [D] to [v], but in the initial position it
is more common to drop it entirely. So it's common to here [Is], [æt],
[Aj] for _this_, _that_, _they_.
Samuel
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: He, she and it against hem
- From: sanlosinst
- Re: He, she and it against hem
- References:
- He, she and it against hem
- From: António Marques
- Re: He, she and it against hem
- From: Aidan Kehoe
- Re: He, she and it against hem
- From: António Marques
- He, she and it against hem
- Prev by Date: languages without verbs?
- Next by Date: Re: Sob, it's true about uvular R
- Previous by thread: Re: He, she and it against hem
- Next by thread: Re: He, she and it against hem
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|