The Innovative Usage Thread

[Ser]

I suppose that maybe there's a schwa between the /m/ and the /n/ (like Chargone says), or that maybe there's no /n/ so it ends up as [-m(p)t], (like Travis says), so that's why I asked. I've never heard it myself.

I should note that amn't is not a native word in my dialect; I just stated how I would pronounce it upon reading it.

But in fact I thought the same thing (minus the [e]). I simply don't see [{mn=t] (cf. [Izn=t]) happening.

[Nortaneous]

* Yes, [ɛ]; I have decided that the open diacritic really is not needed here, from paying to attention to people I know back in Wisconsin, many of whom seem, in everyday speech, to have an even closer vowel than I have here. (But then, I might confuse people who do not realize I mean historical /æ/ with it, which is the main reason why I even had that diacritic there in the first place.)

Eh? Is this for all historical /æ/? Because my dialect has /ɛ/ in "am" (and a few other words with historical /æ/; "catch" and "can" (modal) are all that I can think of right now), but still retains [æ] or some diphthongization thereof for historical /æ/ in general.

*edit* Also I discussed earlier with a suitemate pluralizing "fruit leather"...he went with "10 fruit leathers" (I had just bought 10...go ahead and judge ), while I went with "10 strips of fruit leather". "Fruit leathers" feels wrong to me because I'm fairly certain you can't pluralize "leather" (is it a collective noun? I don't think it is...)...what are the thoughts of the ZBB with regards to this?

Leather is a collective noun. Fruit leather isn't. This is another instance of English's absurd tendency to put spaces between the parts of compound words, I think.

[Travis B.]

* Yes, [ɛ]; I have decided that the open diacritic really is not needed here, from paying to attention to people I know back in Wisconsin, many of whom seem, in everyday speech, to have an even closer vowel than I have here. (But then, I might confuse people who do not realize I mean historical /æ/ with it, which is the main reason why I even had that diacritic there in the first place.)

Eh? Is this for all historical /æ/? Because my dialect has /ɛ/ in "am" (and a few other words with historical /æ/; "catch" and "can" (modal) are all that I can think of right now), but still retains [æ] or some diphthongization thereof for historical /æ/ in general.

This is for all historical /æ/ except cases where it has simply been merged with historical /eɪ̯/. Note that the actual realization varies quite a bit more than [ɛ] would imply, as it can have a range of heights and diphthongal realizations (never with centralization, though), but it seems the simplest and most straightforward way to mark it, especially considering that its idiolectal variation is significant and it is not consistent even within a single person's speech even in a single register.

[Nortaneous]

Then how does it contrast with /ɛ/? And where does it merge with /e/? Is it just the velars thing?

[Travis B.]

Then how does it contrast with /ɛ/? And where does it merge with /e/? Is it just the velars thing?

It contrasts with historical /ɛ/ as that centralizes to [ɜ]. As for when historical /æ/ merges with (and to) historical /eɪ̯/, that is just in the typical case of it before /ŋ/, along with it in some words before /ɡ/ in some idiolects and dialects.

[finlay]

How is "amn't" pronounced?

how do you think it's pronounced?

I'm betting it's either got a schwa between the m and the n

Hole in one! Give the man a prize!

/amənt/ or [amn̩ʔ] - something like that, anyway.

[Chargone]

Of course, if 'am not' becomes 'amn't', dropping the vowel, only to Pronounce that you have to add a vowel back in to get amənt, net saving in time and effort equals... you don't have to include a space when you write it. ' replaces o when writting, ə replaces o when pronouncing, and while ə takes slightly less time to say than o, the awkward shifts that are mnt, even if it's mənt, still completely eliminate any gain in terms of ease or speed of pronouncement, while increase the odds that you'll trip over it.

actually, to me it only makes sense in the context of a dialect that drops initial pronouns And objects to 'am' as a word in it's own right <_<

[linguoboy]

I noticed tonight how funny the word "claustrophobic" is in my dialect, namely that it can be used to describe a person affected by claustrophobia ("I am claustrophobic") as in standard, but it can also be used to describe a situation that induces claustrophobia ("That room is so claustrophobic"). Interesting, and I'm fairly certain this is quite widespread, or at the very least, doesn't sound strange because I have definitely heard it from others before.

Quite a lot of English adjectives work this way, even very basic ones. (A "sick building" is one that makes its occupants sick, not one that gets sick because that doesn't make sense applied to something inanimate.)

Brings to mind the old prescriptivist debate about "nauseous" vs. "nauseated". Despite claims that "I'm nauseous" technically means "I induce nausea" rather than "I am affected by nausea", most speakers couldn't give a fig.

[Lyhoko Leaci]

"Fruit leathers" sounds fine to me... and amn't looks like it would be [ɛ̝mpt] to me. I'm not sure about the vowel, though. Maybe it's [eə] instead...

[finlay]

Of course, if 'am not' becomes 'amn't', dropping the vowel, only to Pronounce that you have to add a vowel back in to get amənt, net saving in time and effort equals... you don't have to include a space when you write it. ' replaces o when writting, ə replaces o when pronouncing, and while ə takes slightly less time to say than o, the awkward shifts that are mnt, even if it's mənt, still completely eliminate any gain in terms of ease or speed of pronouncement, while increase the odds that you'll trip over it.

actually, to me it only makes sense in the context of a dialect that drops initial pronouns And objects to 'am' as a word in it's own right <_<

Quite, which is why 95% of dialects don't allow it.

As I said earlier, my 'native' scottish dialect has this, although I've been living in England and various places for a long enough time (and studying linguistics, which mucks up your perception of your idiolect) that I don't fully know what I have anymore. But it's kinda required for questions... "Amn't I clever?" makes miles more sense to me than things like "Aren't I clever?", which you'll hear in England, IIRC. It's a bit like how you'll hear "Ain't" in many places, in a way.

Another example where it would show up in favour of "I'm not":
"I, like many others before me, amn't fazed by the challenge."

[Chuma]

net saving in time and effort

But "isn't" is usually also described as having a schwa in it, so there's no difference there. Apparently in English unstressed vowels take less time and effort.

[Nortaneous]

But "isn't" is usually also described as having a schwa in it, so there's no difference there. Apparently in English unstressed vowels take less time and effort.

IMD it's usually just [ɪ(d)nː]

[Yng]

But "isn't" is usually also described as having a schwa in it, so there's no difference there. Apparently in English unstressed vowels take less time and effort.

IMD it's usually just [ɪ(d)nː]

IMD, it's [ɪnʔ] or [ɪn].

[Travis B.]

But "isn't" is usually also described as having a schwa in it, so there's no difference there. Apparently in English unstressed vowels take less time and effort.

IMD it's usually just [ɪ(d)nː]

IMD, it's [ɪnʔ] or [ɪn].

Heh, if I heard that after a pronoun ending in a vowel, I would assume that were didn't (there one of [ɨːnː], [ɨːnʔ], [ɨ̃ːɨ̯̃ʔ ], or [ɨ̃ːɨ̯̃n] depending on free variation and environment).

(To me isn't is the awfully standard-sounding [ˈɪːzɨ̃ʔ] or, in some environments, [ˈɪːzɨ̃n].)

[Yng]

I also have /Iz@n/, which is sort of in free variation, although consistent use is a mark of higher register (as you'd expect).

Its most common use AFAICT in the very contracted /In/ is in shortened tags: /InI?/, /Ini/, /Inʃi/.

[Richard W]

"Amn't I clever?" makes miles more sense to me than things like "Aren't I clever?", which you'll hear in England, IIRC.

The latter's fine if you amend the spelling to "A'n't I clever?", as recommended in Usage and Abusage. Incidentally, the latter implies the 'm' is silent in "amn't".

[finlay]

...which just looks retarded

[bulbaquil]

In certain situations, I've noticed there is a tendency for English to become a "context-omissible" language. For instance, I've sometimes been asked to give the "last four of my social" from time to time. That phrase makes no literal sense, but clearly means the last four digits of my social security number.

[Z500]

i just say [ɪːzn̩ʔ]

and fuck the prescriptivists for killing ain't! it created the awkward situation where you can't say "amn't I" because it's too hard to say, or "am i not" because you sound fucking pretentious, leaving only the grammatically incorrect "aren't I"

[Travis B.]

and fuck the prescriptivists for killing ain't! it created the awkward situation where you can't say "amn't I" because it's too hard to say, or "am i not" because you sound fucking pretentious, leaving only the grammatically incorrect "aren't I"

To me, though, aren't I is simply the most natural usage, not merely a grammatical workaround of sorts, while ain't is simply not native to my own speech. (Ain't is found in working-class Milwaukee dialect, but is class-marked to the point that even most lower middle-class people simply do not natively have it in their speech in the first place.)

[Yng]

To me, though, aren't I is simply the most natural usage, not merely a grammatical workaround of sorts, while ain't is simply not native to my own speech. (Ain't is found in working-class Milwaukee dialect, but is class-marked to the point that even most lower middle-class people simply do not natively have it in their speech in the first place.)

Likewise. In lower registers I have something like /ɑn(ʔ)ɑi/ for 'aren't I', though, which particularly without the glottal stop is a working class pronunciation.

[TaylorS]

and fuck the prescriptivists for killing ain't! it created the awkward situation where you can't say "amn't I" because it's too hard to say, or "am i not" because you sound fucking pretentious, leaving only the grammatically incorrect "aren't I"

To me, though, aren't I is simply the most natural usage, not merely a grammatical workaround of sorts, while ain't is simply not native to my own speech. (Ain't is found in working-class Milwaukee dialect, but is class-marked to the point that even most lower middle-class people simply do not natively have it in their speech in the first place.)

In my experience many speakers use "ain't" in any person, as if it has become a distinct emphatic negative copula.

[Travis B.]

and fuck the prescriptivists for killing ain't! it created the awkward situation where you can't say "amn't I" because it's too hard to say, or "am i not" because you sound fucking pretentious, leaving only the grammatically incorrect "aren't I"

To me, though, aren't I is simply the most natural usage, not merely a grammatical workaround of sorts, while ain't is simply not native to my own speech. (Ain't is found in working-class Milwaukee dialect, but is class-marked to the point that even most lower middle-class people simply do not natively have it in their speech in the first place.)

In my experience many speakers use "ain't" in any person, as if it has become a distinct emphatic negative copula.

That is as I have normally heard it used in North American English varieties that do have it; that is, it is not merely an equivalent of amn't in these varieties.

[finlay]

Diachronically, that's where it'll have come from, though.

[Mecislau]

But "isn't" is usually also described as having a schwa in it, so there's no difference there. Apparently in English unstressed vowels take less time and effort.

IMD it's usually just [ɪ(d)nː]

Could you clarify what you're referring to when you say "IMD"? I mean, have you observed this in others around you as well?

I ask because I don't think I live more than 5 miles from you when I'm home from university (given your high school, at least), but I certainly cannot have [d] in "isn't", nor do I recall having heard it from anyone else in the immediate area.

(I do agree with having [ɛ] in "catch" and modal "can", though)