English questions

[Travis B.]

It's not easy to say whether super or sugar is the exception, though, since there are so few examples (remember, we're only talking about /su/ that predates the GVS, so "soon" is irrelevant).

FWIW super stands out as a Latin loan— compare suture, supine. The OED thinks the latter two have an optional yod in British English.

One thing to remember is that super is visibly a Latinate loan, so it is not unsurprising that it is less integrated than earlier and more common Oïl loans which originally had /y/ which became /iw/, and thus have different and less irregular diachronics. It should be remembered that the regular outcome of stressed EModE /siw/ in non-yod-dropping varieties is /sjuː/, and the yod-coalescence in sure and sugar is highly irregular and probably an artifact of these being very common, highly integrated words.

Is suit relevant? I'm not sure what the vowel was in Anglo-French—  there's an alternate spelling siwete which suggests a diphthong at least. (Modern French /sɥit/ presumably comes from /syitə/.)

Siwete implies historical French /syitə/, as the regular outcome of Oïl /y/ in LME or EModE (depending on if you posit a LME phoneme /y/ from Oïl /y/, and if you do, how long it survived before merging with /iw/) is /iw/, combined with reduction of the /i/ to schwa.

[Travis B.]

What did you think of COT-CAUGHT mergers when you were growing up? Did you even notice them? Did you think that they just pronounced certain words different and not realize is was systemic?

I was completely oblivious to the very existence of the cot-caught merger, partially that I had no awareness that anyone would merge them, but seemingly contradictorily because for me [ɑ(ː)] is an acceptable realization of both /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ (except /ɔ/ before /r/)*, so I didn't notice when people did merge the two.

* For me [ɑ(ː)] is the realization of /ɑ/ adjacent to /r w h kw gw/ (/ɑ/ otherwise is [a]), and while my normal realization of /ɔ/ not before /r/ is [ɒ(ː)], I will sporadically realize it as [ɑ(ː)], I am very used to [ɑ(ː)] as a valid realization of /ɔ/ not before /r/ as that is what my mother has for it (she has a similar realization of /ɑ/ as myself, where it is normally [a(ː)] but is [ɑ(ː)] adjacent to /r w h kw gw/). Adding to this, I am familiar with [ɑ(ː)] as a valid realization of /ɑ/ in all environments from its realization in GA.

Wait, so if [A] is an acceptable realization of /O/, then what is /A/ ? [a] ?

Except adjacent to /r w h kw gw/, yes, /ɑ/ is [a(ː)] in the varieties in southeastern Wisconsin (even though those highly affecting a basilectal Milwaukee accent may say [æ(ː)] as in Wisc[æ̃ː]nsin, even though I practically never hear this in Real Life).

[jcb]

The key thing is that most North Americans at least to my knowledge have no idea that anyone makes a distinction between two vowels in these words. (I didn't until I was well into adulthood.)

And then a selecti quidem of us grew up in a city with at START-NORTH merger and didn't realise their pronunciation of words like "forest" and "horror" was not GA until high school.

Is an incomplete START-NORTH merger why some dialects (like mine) have /A/ in SORRY and SORROW, but still have /o/ in FOREST and HORROR, despite the spelling the former with <o>?

Edit: Fixed HORROR.

[Travis B.]

The key thing is that most North Americans at least to my knowledge have no idea that anyone makes a distinction between two vowels in these words. (I didn't until I was well into adulthood.)

And then a selecti quidem of us grew up in a city with at START-NORTH merger and didn't realise their pronunciation of words like "forest" and "horror" was not GA until high school.

Is an incomplete START-NORTH merger why some dialects (like mine) have /A/ in SORRY and SORROW, but still have /o/ in FOREST and SORROW, despite the spelling the former with <o>?

This is a standard feature in GA, where the words tomorrow, borrow, sorrow, sorry have historical LOT before /r/ shifted to /ɑ/ unlike all other cases of LOT before /r/ in words such as forest, horrible, and Florida which have been shifted in GA to /ɔ/ (which, being before /r/, does not undergo the cot-caught merger in affected dialects).

(My own native dialect almost follows the GA pattern here except that it shifts sorry to /ɔ/ even though it shifts sorrow to /ɑ/, but that is not true of all people in southeastern Wisconsin, e.g. my daughter has /ɑ/ in sorry.)

[jcb]

And then a selecti quidem of us grew up in a city with at START-NORTH merger and didn't realise their pronunciation of words like "forest" and "horror" was not GA until high school.

Is an incomplete START-NORTH merger why some dialects (like mine) have /A/ in SORRY and SORROW, but still have /o/ in FOREST and SORROW, despite the spelling the former with <o>?

This is a standard feature in GA, where the words tomorrow, borrow, sorrow, sorry have historical LOT before /r/ shifted to /ɑ/ unlike all other cases of LOT before /r/ in words such as forest, horrible, and Florida which have been shifted in GA to /ɔ/ (which, being before /r/, does not undergo the cot-caught merger in affected dialects).

I know that it's standard. I assume it's because of an incomplete shift in GA, or because GA was assembled from various other dialects, some of which shifted, and some which didn't.

(My own native dialect almost follows the GA pattern here except that it shifts sorry to /ɔ/ even though it shifts sorrow to /ɑ/, but that is not true of all people in southeastern Wisconsin, e.g. my daughter has /ɑ/ in sorry.)

That's similar to me: SORROW always has /A/, but SORRY can have either /A/ or /o/. (I prefer /A/.)

[Travis B.]

Is an incomplete START-NORTH merger why some dialects (like mine) have /A/ in SORRY and SORROW, but still have /o/ in FOREST and SORROW, despite the spelling the former with <o>?

This is a standard feature in GA, where the words tomorrow, borrow, sorrow, sorry have historical LOT before /r/ shifted to /ɑ/ unlike all other cases of LOT before /r/ in words such as forest, horrible, and Florida which have been shifted in GA to /ɔ/ (which, being before /r/, does not undergo the cot-caught merger in affected dialects).

I know that it's standard. I assume it's because of an incomplete shift in GA, or because GA was assembled from various other dialects, some of which shifted, and some which didn't.

My guess is that it was dissimilation triggered by the /oʊ/ in the second syllable, except in the case of sorry which was by analogy with sorrow.

[Sol717]

Is suit relevant? I'm not sure what the vowel was in Anglo-French—  there's an alternate spelling siwete which suggests a diphthong at least. (Modern French /sɥit/ presumably comes from /syitə/.)

Siwete implies historical French /syitə/, as the regular outcome of Oïl /y/ in LME or EModE (depending on if you posit a LME phoneme /y/ from Oïl /y/, and if you do, how long it survived before merging with /iw/) is /iw/, combined with reduction of the /i/ to schwa.

The original Old French form is siute, sieute /ˈsiy̯tə/; suite is apparently a later metathetic form paralleled by tuile < tiule "tile". Spellings of the type siute, siwte, sywte are thus unsurprisingly predominant in the earliest Middle English attestations; suite, suyte only appears later (mostly after 1400) as a adjustment to contemporary French spelling norms.

[jal]

I encountered this sentence in The Hobbit (as I'm translating it into my conlang Sajiwan), and though I get what it means, I have a hard time analyzing it.

"Beorn did not show it more than he could help, but really he had begun to get very interested."

What it obviously means is that Beorn didn't show he was interested, except for the bit he couldn't hide. But I have difficulties with "did not show it more than he could help". If I take that as "did not show it more than [the bit he was showing]", "than he could help" refers to the bit that he was showing, but in that case, he couldn't help himself right? Is there a negative missing? Should the sentence be "did not show it more than he couldn't help"?


JAL

[Lērisama]

I encountered this sentence in The Hobbit (as I'm translating it into my conlang Sajiwan), and though I get what it means, I have a hard time analyzing it.

"Beorn did not show it more than he could help, but really he had begun to get very interested."

What it obviously means is that Beorn didn't show he was interested, except for the bit he couldn't hide. But I have difficulties with "did not show it more than he could help". If I take that as "did not show it more than [the bit he was showing]", "than he could help" refers to the bit that he was showing, but in that case, he couldn't help himself right? Is there a negative missing? Should the sentence be "did not show it more than he couldn't help"?


JAL

You have succeeded at thoroughly confusing me. While your reasoning seems fine to me, it can't be, because Tolkien's version is definitely better¹, although old-fashioned – "than he couldn't help" is questionable at best.

¹ Citation: Native speaker intuition, and the least helpful kind – I can't tell you why

[Darren]

I encountered this sentence in The Hobbit (as I'm translating it into my conlang Sajiwan), and though I get what it means, I have a hard time analyzing it.

"Beorn did not show it more than he could help, but really he had begun to get very interested."

What it obviously means is that Beorn didn't show he was interested, except for the bit he couldn't hide. But I have difficulties with "did not show it more than he could help". If I take that as "did not show it more than [the bit he was showing]", "than he could help" refers to the bit that he was showing, but in that case, he couldn't help himself right? Is there a negative missing? Should the sentence be "did not show it more than he couldn't help"?


JAL

There's no negative missing, but I'm struggling to explain why. I guess "more than he could help" is just a fixed expression that may not always take kindly to rigorous analysis.

[zompist]

I encountered this sentence in The Hobbit (as I'm translating it into my conlang Sajiwan), and though I get what it means, I have a hard time analyzing it.

"Beorn did not show it more than he could help, but really he had begun to get very interested."

What it obviously means is that Beorn didn't show he was interested, except for the bit he couldn't hide. But I have difficulties with "did not show it more than he could help". If I take that as "did not show it more than [the bit he was showing]", "than he could help" refers to the bit that he was showing, but in that case, he couldn't help himself right? Is there a negative missing? Should the sentence be "did not show it more than he couldn't help"?

Logically you're right— the amount he does show his interest isn't what he could help showing, but what he couldn't help showing. But adding a negative sounds weird and would probably confuse readers.

[jal]

Thanks all, good to see I'm not crazy :). Now I have to come up with a translation that makes sense :).


JAL

[Glass Half Baked]

I encountered this sentence in The Hobbit (as I'm translating it into my conlang Sajiwan), and though I get what it means, I have a hard time analyzing it.

"Beorn did not show it more than he could help, but really he had begun to get very interested."

What it obviously means is that Beorn didn't show he was interested, except for the bit he couldn't hide. But I have difficulties with "did not show it more than he could help". If I take that as "did not show it more than [the bit he was showing]", "than he could help" refers to the bit that he was showing, but in that case, he couldn't help himself right? Is there a negative missing? Should the sentence be "did not show it more than he couldn't help"?

Logically you're right— the amount he does show his interest isn't what he could help showing, but what he couldn't help showing. But adding a negative sounds weird and would probably confuse readers.

IMO, the negative is conflicting with the English practice of omitting objects in relative clauses.
* "I didn't say anything more than I couldn't help saying."
But if I put the object back in the relative clause, the negative sounds fine.
"I didn't say anything more than what I couldn't help saying."
I don't know why the negative and the omission of the object would be mutually exclusive like this, but that seems to be what's happening for me. When the relative clause is an object the negative works fine.
"I didn't throw away the pencil I couldn't help chewing."
So it's got to be something about the non-core role of the relative clause. I just don't know why that would affect the negation. Maybe some subtle detail of lexical aspect?

[zompist]

IMO, the negative is conflicting with the English practice of omitting objects in relative clauses.
* "I didn't say anything more than I couldn't help saying."
But if I put the object back in the relative clause, the negative sounds fine.
"I didn't say anything more than what I couldn't help saying."
I don't know why the negative and the omission of the object would be mutually exclusive like this, but that seems to be what's happening for me.

Nice observation!

It's not the only case where acceptability varies with inclusion or omission of the negative. Another one that someone pointed out here: can doesn't play well with the perfect-- except in negative sentences.

*The culprits can have coordinated with the CEO.
The culprits can't have coordinated with the CEO.

[bradrn]

*The culprits can have coordinated with the CEO.
*The culprits can't have coordinated with the CEO.

Those asterisks are meant as bullet points, not ungrammaticality markers… right?

[zompist]

Fixed. (Cut and paste error.)

[jal]

can doesn't play well with the perfect-- except in negative sentences.
*The culprits can have coordinated with the CEO.
The culprits can't have coordinated with the CEO.

"Can" seems to have an exclusively present tense reading, which conflicts with the perfect. "Could" does fine there. "Can't" doesn't have that problem. Interesting.


JAL

[jcb]

This is a standard feature in GA, where the words tomorrow, borrow, sorrow, sorry have historical LOT before /r/ shifted to /ɑ/ unlike all other cases of LOT before /r/ in words such as forest, horrible, and Florida which have been shifted in GA to /ɔ/ (which, being before /r/, does not undergo the cot-caught merger in affected dialects).

I know that it's standard. I assume it's because of an incomplete shift in GA, or because GA was assembled from various other dialects, some of which shifted, and some which didn't.

My guess is that it was dissimilation triggered by the /oʊ/ in the second syllable, except in the case of sorry which was by analogy with sorrow.

That makes way more sense. Thank you for enlightening me.

[jcb]

I don't have the cot-caught merger, but even I have to speak very carefully to notice the distinction. As a kid I would hear people speaking in Californian and just think "Oh, that's a funny way to say that." The low and back vowels are generally a good source of ridicule for non-standard dialects (up north they get cat by the caps stealing cwaufee), so I think subconsciously a lot of people just assume that part of the vowel space is a hopeless mess anyway.

Do/did you associate COT-CAUGHT merging with California? Were you not aware as a kid that people in parts of the Midwest merge them too?

[jcb]

Indeed, I thought that the spelling distinction between <o> and <au> was just an aesthetic spelling difference, like <ee> and <ea>, or <oCe> and <oa>, and nothing more. (Is there any dialect left in the English-speaking world that hasn't merged REED and READ, or LODE and LOAD?)

I don't think <oCe> vs. <oa> reflects a historic pronunciation difference at all. The traditional local dialect where I am (which I don't speak) has a distinction between the reflex of Old English /ɑː/ and that of Old English /ɔ/ lengthened in open syllables in Middle English. You might think that these would be represented by <oa> and <oCe> respectively but that's not how it works: for example both coal and hole come from open syllable lengthening but whole and goal come from the OE long vowel.

Is there a list somewhere of which spellings belong to which source? (Without me having to look them up one-by-one.)