Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Linguoboy]

I always thought positive "anymore" was a Midwestern thing. I grew up in Michigan and picked it up as a teenager (I think from my parents, who might have picked it up from others). I'm not aware of any class associations either.

I picked it up from my late husband, who grew up in the Bay Area. His parents were from southern Michigan and he was born there, but they moved before he started school. He certainly would've been surprised to hear anyone considered it "low-class". (His family was very class-conscious. He told a story about one of his sister's suitors dooming himself at the start because he called their father "sir". Only "Okies" did that.)

[Moose-tache]

The only people in my life who use positive "anymore" are from Iowa. Historically it was pretty widespread, but it's possible that it has survived longest in the Midwest, kind of like distinct /wh/.

[Kuchigakatai]

I picked it up from...

I remember years ago you wrote some long post on "needs warshed". Is that commonly used in St. Louis? Does it have any class associations in the Midwest?

I think it's clear I was wrong about positive anymore.

[Linguoboy]

I picked it up from...

I remember years ago you wrote some long post on "needs warshed". Is that commonly used in St. Louis? Does it have any class associations in the Midwest?

I never heard that in St Louis. I first learned about it from Iowans in Chicago.

"Warshed" has class associations. I don't know that the "needs Xed" construction does outside of Pittsburgh, but I don't have a lot of data.

[Moose-tache]

I try to be accepting of non-standard speech in English. "On accident?" Sure, go ahead. "I could care less?" Fine, whatever. My Iowan Grandma says "warshed" and I wouldn't dream of rolling my eyes at her. I'll even allow "for all intensive purposes," because life is too short to get my blood pressure up.

But every time I read the word "favortism," I nearly have a spell. How does this keep happening, and what is the military planning to do to stop it?

[quinterbeck]

But every time I read the word "favortism," I nearly have a spell. How does this keep happening, and what is the military planning to do to stop it?

Start pronouncing it like a Brit? [fɛjvɹətɪzm̩]

[Linguoboy]

But every time I read the word "favortism," I nearly have a spell. How does this keep happening, and what is the military planning to do to stop it?

I honestly had to look that word up to figure out what your beef with it was.

[Moose-tache]

Wait... is "favoritism" the exception? Was I the outlier the whole time? This is worse than the time I learned that victuals and vittles are the same word.

[Linguoboy]

MWD sez: \ ˈfā-v(ə-)rə-ˌti-zəm, ˈfā-vər- \
AHD sez: (fā′vər-ĭ-tĭz′əm, fāv′rĭ-)

It take it you pronounce "favourite" in three syllables as well?

[aporaporimos]

I try to be accepting of non-standard speech in English. "On accident?" Sure, go ahead.

"On accident" is non-standard??

[Pabappa]

"on accident" sounds like something a kid would say to me. no offense intended, as i enjoy using phrases like that myself, but i wouldnt do it in a formal environment. i suspect it arose from over-generalization of the pattern of "on purpose".

"favoritist" for me has a true /t/ (not flapped) but still has all its vowels. the lack of flapping may contribute to its perception as not having a full vowel before the /t/, but thats just a hunch.

[dewrad]

I try to be accepting of non-standard speech in English. "On accident?" Sure, go ahead.

"On accident" is non-standard??

"By accident", afaik, is standard. "On accident" is by analogy with "on purpose".

Which leads to the question: does the reverse occur: "by purpose"?

[Estav]

MWD sez: \ ˈfā-v(ə-)rə-ˌti-zəm, ˈfā-vər- \
AHD sez: (fā′vər-ĭ-tĭz′əm, fāv′rĭ-)

It take it you pronounce "favourite" in three syllables as well?

Neither of those shows a pronunciation that would regularly correspond to “favortism” with “rt” instead of “rit”. Unless you think that’s what MW meant with \ ˈfā-vər- \ , but I read that as short for \ ˈfā-vər-ə-ˌti-zəm \.

[Linguoboy]

MWD sez: \ ˈfā-v(ə-)rə-ˌti-zəm, ˈfā-vər- \
AHD sez: (fā′vər-ĭ-tĭz′əm, fāv′rĭ-)

It take it you pronounce "favourite" in three syllables as well?

Neither of those shows a pronunciation that would regularly correspond to “favortism” with “rt” instead of “rit”. Unless you think that’s what MW meant with \ ˈfā-vər- \ , but I read that as short for \ ˈfā-vər-ə-ˌti-zəm \.

Why would you write both \ ˈfā-v(ə-)rə-\ and \ˈfā-vər- \ otherwise? \ ˈfā-vər-ə-ˌti-zəm \ is what you get if you take out the parentheses.

[aporaporimos]

I try to be accepting of non-standard speech in English. "On accident?" Sure, go ahead.

"On accident" is non-standard??

"By accident", afaik, is standard. "On accident" is by analogy with "on purpose".

Which leads to the question: does the reverse occur: "by purpose"?

I've never perceived a difference between "by accident" and "on accident" before; I'm only learning today that the latter is recent and, apparently, has some strong detractors. I don't know which I say more often either. I'm searching logs of chat groups I'm in and it looks like I say both, as do the other Americans-in-their-20s that I talk to.

This is almost as bad as when I discovered that some people think it's non-standard to say "snuck"!

[Travis B.]

I too say both "on accident" and "by accident" completely interchangeably without blinking an eye. Yes, I know that technically "by accident" is standard per se, but I am so used to saying "on accident" as well that I don't think much of it, and would find it weird if anyone actually cared.

[Travis B.]

MWD sez: \ ˈfā-v(ə-)rə-ˌti-zəm, ˈfā-vər- \
AHD sez: (fā′vər-ĭ-tĭz′əm, fāv′rĭ-)

It take it you pronounce "favourite" in three syllables as well?

I pronounce favoritism as three syllables but not like "favortism" but rather the pronunciation MWD implies above, /ˈfeɪvrəˌtɪzəm/.

[Moose-tache]

"favoritist" for me has a true /t/ (not flapped) but still has all its vowels. the lack of flapping may contribute to its perception as not having a full vowel before the /t/, but thats just a hunch.

But /r/ doesn't block flapping anyway!

Also: yes, it's crazy to me that "snuck" is not the accepted form.

[KathTheDragon]

Also: yes, it's crazy to me that "snuck" is not the accepted form.

It isn't?

[dɮ the phoneme]

I've occasionally heard people use a preposition + which construction (does that have a name?) while also stranding the preposition at the end of the clause: "the store to which I went to", or something like that. But I recently heard someone say "the source from which it was influenced by", with two different prepositions!