On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:54:04 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. DanielsPost by Peter Duncanson [BrE]On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:29:43 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. DanielsPost by Peter Duncanson [BrE]On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 20:26:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. DanielsPost by Will ParsonsPost by RossPost by b***@aol.comPost by RossPost by RossThe case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /?/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /?/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /?/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [?soufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
Were you here when some of them were claiming that "lurv" or "lurve" (apparently
found in some Britpop music lyrics) indicated some special pronunciation
of "love" in some special context?
After much discussion, it turned out that it's at best eye-dialect, but in fact
indicates nothing at all.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lurve
lurve
NOUN & VERB
non-standard spelling of love (used in humorous reference to
romantic infatuation)
Origin
1930s: as a parody of the pronunciation of love in popular romantic
songs.
Note that "ur" in "lurve" is a nonrhotic sound. It is similar to
nonrhotic "er". It represents the vowel sound used in "popular romantic
songs" that can be extended indefinitely: "luuuuuurve". The usual "o"
sound in "love", in BrE, rhymes with that in "up" which cannot be
readily extended in the same way.
Why on earth not?
Because of the way it is spoken in BrE.[1]
https://forvo.com/word/up/#en
If extended those "u" sounds would be a croak.
? Ms. Jazzy9 either is afflicted with perpetual creaky voice or should have
cleared her throat before recording. The creakiness has nothing to do with
the timbre of the vowel. I don't find anything creaky about Mr palashdave.
Since the croak has nothing to do with the pronunciation of the vowel, there's
no reason it can't be extended like any other vowel.
My use of "croak" may not be precise.
Here is an audio clip from the AUE website of two people attempting to
speak an extended "u" as in "up" or "hurry", the ASCII IPA /V/:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160707192557/http://alt-usage-english.org/ipa/london_opn_mid_bck_urd_crd_14_4_bit.wav
I'm not sure that those are good representations of an extended /V/. To
me /V/ is not readily extendible. When I speak "u" in "up" it is
unvoiced or very slightly voiced. To extend it, it needs to be voiced,
which changes the sound.
This is "hurry", using the same /V/ sound:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160707192708/http://alt-usage-english.org/ipa/hurry4.wav
From:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160707184522/http://alt-usage-english.org/ipa/ascii_ipa_combined.shtml#cnv
Post by Peter T. DanielsPost by Peter Duncanson [BrE][1] In some dialects of BrE "up" does not rhyme with any version of the
"o" in "love".
And that's why phonetic transcription is needed. In AmE, both are [?]. I know
that there are varieties of BrE that have [?] in "up" and in "love," and it
would make sense if any particular dialect has that sound in both words (the
conditioning environments are quite similar, viz., a following labial consonant
that's liable to cause rounding of the preceding vowel). For instance, Mr Lennon
(and presumably his bandmates) have [?] in both words when speaking. (In "She
Loves Me, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah," it's clearly [l?v].)
What are the respective vowels in your "some dialects"?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)