Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!
- From: Colin Fine <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:39:38 +0000
John Atkinson wrote:
And you hear /wa:m/ for <warm> in Bradford, though I think it's one of the peculiarities people are aware of, like /riyt/."Colin Fine" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote...
Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
I agree <swam> is isolated - except that there is also <wham>.Regarding the pronunciation of <wa> words -- After all this discussion of exotic names, has anyone thought of the word "swamp" which is, of course, pronounced "swomp"?
There had been mention of some "rule" stating that an "a" is unlikely to be given that "o" sound before a [m], even if a [w] precedes; thus "swamp" would then be an exception. In fact, I have never encountered before now any such claim like this about the sound [m] "blocking" the sound change of a short-o that is common in "wa-" words. The velars, yes; I have occasionally seen people use the velar-ness of the following consonant to explain the regular "short a" sound in "whack", "wagon", etc. But not [m]. Do you guys really think that the non-use of an "o"-sound in "swam" is to be explained on the basis of the [m]? If you try to stretch that logic, you might end up saying that we ought to spell and pronounce it "swimmed". I think it is more likely that the short-a sound in the middle item to the "swim"/"swam"/"swum" conjugation was preserved because the phonetic "i"/"a"/"u" change was already familiar in a number of other irregular verbs, such as "sing" and "drink". (As far as I know, English has no strong verb that conjugates with a phonetic "i"/"o"/"u".)
daniel mcgrath
<Wham>, arguably, has /&/ in analogy with the older and probably more frequently used <whack>, and the older but probably less frequently used <whang>. All three are similar in meaning, and seem to be at least partly onomatopeic in origin. But then there's <whomp> and <whop>, which seem to belong to the same set.
This is the same sort of argument as Daniel's, that <swam> has /&/ in analogy with strong verbs with /I/ in the present: <sang>, <rang>, <sprang>, <drank>, <sank>, <shrank>, <stank>, <began>, <span> (for some people) and, (not fully analogous) <sat>, <shat>, <spat>. Also <ran>, perhaps.
Exceptions to Daniel's pattern are about as common however (though they all have unrounded /V/, not /A./): <clung>, <hung>, <slung>, <slunk>, <stung>, <strung>, <swung>, <wrung>, <stuck>, <dug>, <won>, and <spun> (for some people). all of these, I believe, started off with the same i/a/u pattern as "swim". In particular, "win" has /w/ like /swim/ but unlike it changed past tense /w&n/ to /wVn/.
What does all this prove? Probably nothing.
FWIW: In my dialect, "He swum across the pool" doesn't sound wrong.
That's why I suggested that <m> might be relevant - but you are right that the rule (if there is one) is not universal.
It's a "rule" that's at least as often broken as observed!
So far the only words obeying it are swam, wham
Qualm obeys it for most speakers.
Wamble disobeys it for most speakers.
Swamp, wampum, warm disobey it
That's all the common words there are, I think. But all the 19th century foreign loans I know of end up, once they're fully naturalised, with /wA.m-/ (including <wombat> which has had its spelling changed to fit).
I have never been sure how I pronounce Kurt Vonnegut's 'wampeter' (from Cat's Cradle) for this reason.
Haven't read it, but I'd automatically say /wA.mp@t@/
Your dialect may differ, of course (Scots, e.g., doesn't round or back at all after /w/, AFAIK).
John.
Colin .
- References:
- Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!
- From: Neeraj Mathur
- Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!
- From: ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!
- From: Neeraj Mathur
- Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!
- From: ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!
- From: John Atkinson
- Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!
- From: Colin Fine
- Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!
- From: John Atkinson
- Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!
- From: ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!
- From: John Atkinson
- Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!
- From: Daniel al-Autistiqui
- Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!
- From: Colin Fine
- Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!
- From: John Atkinson
- Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!
- Prev by Date: Re: nationalists, languages and dialects
- Next by Date: Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- Previous by thread: Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!
- Next by thread: Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|