Crossing our fingers
https://verduria.org/
My really fast did you have is [dʒ(ə)hæv].Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 1:23 pmMy favorite is when I stack clitics so as to have /djæv/ for do you have (note that in this case I never coalesce /dj/ to *[dʒ]).Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 12:58 pmI don't have those contractions, but when speaking quickly, you have can sound like /jhæv/, and you don't can sound like /jdount/.
I similarly often have /dʒæv/ for did you have in fast speech. Note that the difference beween /dj/ ([d̥j]) and /dʒ/ ([tʃ]) is phonemic here, and is hard to explain since /d/ followed by /j/ across word boundaries frequently becomes [tʃ] for me but this never happens for me in do you have.Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 1:57 pmMy really fast did you have is [dʒ(ə)hæv].Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 1:23 pmMy favorite is when I stack clitics so as to have /djæv/ for do you have (note that in this case I never coalesce /dj/ to *[dʒ]).Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 12:58 pm
I don't have those contractions, but when speaking quickly, you have can sound like /jhæv/, and you don't can sound like /jdount/.
Maybe you have some sort of devoiced micro-schwa in there? I have no idea if this is something that can actually happen.Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 2:10 pmI similarly often have /dʒæv/ for did you have in fast speech. Note that the difference beween /dj/ ([d̥j]) and /dʒ/ ([tʃ]) is phonemic here, and is hard to explain since /d/ followed by /j/ across word boundaries frequently becomes [tʃ] for me but this never happens for me in do you have.
I likewise think that my lect kinda phonologically remembers that a vowel once separated the /d/ and the /j/ and doesn't coalesce them as it normally would.Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 4:26 pmMaybe you have some sort of devoiced micro-schwa in there? I have no idea if this is something that can actually happen.Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 2:10 pmI similarly often have /dʒæv/ for did you have in fast speech. Note that the difference beween /dj/ ([d̥j]) and /dʒ/ ([tʃ]) is phonemic here, and is hard to explain since /d/ followed by /j/ across word boundaries frequently becomes [tʃ] for me but this never happens for me in do you have.
I've never heard of a variety of North American English having an exception to yod coalescence like this. Even my (comparatively) fairly conservative speech has heavy palatalisation where yod-dropping isn't mandatory or I haven't hypercorrected in the sequence [nj]. I can't think of an example of where I have a sequence of /tj dj sj zj/ that hasn't shifted to [tʃʰ dʒ ʃ ʒ]. This also tends to happen before /r/, though not across syllable boundaries, so tree, drink, Sri Lanka can have [tʃʰ dʒ ʃ] in free variation with the expected [tʰ d s], but Ezra does not ever have [ʒ].Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 4:28 pmI likewise think that my lect kinda phonologically remembers that a vowel once separated the /d/ and the /j/ and doesn't coalesce them as it normally would.Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 4:26 pmMaybe you have some sort of devoiced micro-schwa in there? I have no idea if this is something that can actually happen.Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 2:10 pm I similarly often have /dʒæv/ for did you have in fast speech. Note that the difference beween /dj/ ([d̥j]) and /dʒ/ ([tʃ]) is phonemic here, and is hard to explain since /d/ followed by /j/ across word boundaries frequently becomes [tʃ] for me but this never happens for me in do you have.
As a native speaker of Dutch I find it funny that English has contractions in formal speech and writing, but limits contractions almost to those. As opposed to Dutch, that doesn't have contractions in formal speech or (non-eye-dialect) writing, but heavily contracts pronouns, some adverbs and some auxiliaries in fast colloquial speech (my favourites being [ˈɑjdɑ(t)] and [ˈɑjtni] for /ɑls jə dɑt/ and /ɑls jə dɑt nit/ respectively).
I'm sorry, wasn't my English clear enough? Or are you the on-topicness police?
I think jal was speaking of how there are standardized contractions in English which are acceptable* to use outside of specifically formal writing, whereas standard Dutch lacks them.jal wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 9:48 amI'm sorry, wasn't my English clear enough? Or are you the on-topicness police?
Gonna is a special case because it cannot be used for going to in general, but rather only for the prospective aspect. For instance, one would say I'm gonna get some food but one cannot say *I'm gonna the store, but rather one must say I'm going to the store; hence gonna is specificially lexicalized and cannot be chalked up to mere reduction alone. The other forms though, too, are probably best treated as lexicalized.
I've reread the statement several times, and I'm still not totally sure what it's supposed to mean. It's specifically the part about limiting "contractions almost to those", which isn't at all true of spoken English — Travis has already noted the numerous "non-canonical" contractions that are so frequent daily speech can sound unnatural without them. Do you perhaps mean you find it odd that there are a subset of canonical contractions in written English that also appear in the spoken language, but that not all broadly-used contractions have canonical written forms?
I would disagree with this analysis, and simply call them "weak forms" of extremely common sequences of function words and pronominals.Re gonna etc., those are now lexical item in and of itself, I think, which I think - though I'm not a linguist nor someone who reads formal studies of Dutch - is not the case in Dutch.
Similarly used to in its past habitual use vs used to as a mere concatenation of the verb use and the preposition to.Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 11:31 am Gonna is a special case because it cannot be used for going to in general, but rather only for the prospective aspect. For instance, one would say I'm gonna get some food but one cannot say *I'm gonna the store, but rather one must say I'm going to the store; hence gonna is specificially lexicalized and cannot be chalked up to mere reduction alone. The other forms though, too, are probably best treated as lexicalized.
I would say that I'ma is simply a colloquial English contraction that happens to be found in AAVE along with other English dialects. For instance, in the variety I speak, I have it in the form of [ˈãːẽ̯mə̃ː] even though AAVE influence on my speech is pretty negligible.
The difference between what you stated and what I stated is that what you stated implies that I'ma is specifically associated with AAVE in particular (which further implies that its presence in other English varieties is under AAVE influence), whereas what I stated is that it is a colloquial English form which just happens to be found in AAVE out of the many English varieties it is found in.Linguoboy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:52 pmNext time I need an example of "a distinction without a difference", I'ma use this one.
All the examples Travis stated are what I'd call lexicalized items, and all also in grammaticalized constructions (aux verbs, mostly). I feel it's also different from the type of contractions in Dutch, that are less grammaticalized, and definitely not lexicalized.Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 11:34 amI've reread the statement several times, and I'm still not totally sure what it's supposed to mean. It's specifically the part about limiting "contractions almost to those", which isn't at all true of spoken English — Travis has already noted the numerous "non-canonical" contractions that are so frequent daily speech can sound unnatural without them. Do you perhaps mean you find it odd that there are a subset of canonical contractions in written English that also appear in the spoken language, but that not all broadly-used contractions have canonical written forms?
For something to be a "weak form" I'd say it also need to be lexicalized. Though perhaps our definition of "lexicalized" differs.I would disagree with this analysis, and simply call them "weak forms" of extremely common sequences of function words and pronominals.
I've found myself using "I've not" on an occasional-but-increasing basis, but I'm also the type that likes to sprinkle in archaisms/pretentionisms like "thou" or "t'is" into my speech for fun, so I'm probably not the most representative sample.
I should say that I will at times use I've not when I am specifically emphasizing negation rather than perfectness.Herra Ratatoskr wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 4:40 pmI've found myself using "I've not" on an occasional-but-increasing basis, but I'm also the type that likes to sprinkle in archaisms/pretentionisms like "thou" or "t'is" into my speech for fun, so I'm probably not the most representative sample.