Hmm. I wonder if anyone says "kiln" as "kill un".linguoboy wrote:FWIW, Wikipedia gives no rhymes. I'm quite happy to delete shwas in allegro speech most of the time, but I can't think of a single instance where I elide it between /l/ and /n/.Imralu wrote:Does anyone know of another English word with /ln/ in a coda? I can only think of the name Milne.
Occurrence of spelling pronunciations
Re: Occurrence of spelling pronunciations
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: Occurrence of spelling pronunciations
Segmentable into oft- + -en, and there aren't many other words with -ftə(l/n) for people to learn the rule from.Imralu wrote:Also, any idea why the t is so often pronounced in "often" but basically never in thistle, castle, listen, fasten, mustn't? Is it that the FRICATIVE /t/ SCHWA /l/n/ thingy didn't happen as widespreadly with /f/ as with /s/ and held on in some dialects to respread, or there some reason that makes "often" a better candidate to pick up a spelling pronunciation?
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: Occurrence of spelling pronunciations
I think that's right. Looking at comparables, it seems as though the /t/ is more likely to be found where the meaning is more transparent (i.e. where it can be analysed as a derivative). So in "fasten", I don't think I've ever heard the /t/, because the synchronic derivation from "quick" to "make fixed" is so obscure. "Chasten" I've occasionally heard a /t/ I think. "Hasten" and "soften", where the derivation is clearer, usually don't have /t/ but often do and I certainly wouldn't blink when hearing it (I think my mother says /sQftn/, actually?). And if I ever used a word like "swiften" (to make swift), I'd certainly keep the /t/.Nortaneous wrote:Segmentable into oft- + -en, and there aren't many other words with -ftə(l/n) for people to learn the rule from.Imralu wrote:Also, any idea why the t is so often pronounced in "often" but basically never in thistle, castle, listen, fasten, mustn't? Is it that the FRICATIVE /t/ SCHWA /l/n/ thingy didn't happen as widespreadly with /f/ as with /s/ and held on in some dialects to respread, or there some reason that makes "often" a better candidate to pick up a spelling pronunciation?
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Re: Occurrence of spelling pronunciations
ISTR hearing the spelling pronunciation [ˈʧæstnˌ] before. Hearing both a /t/ and an /ey/ would be jarring.Salmoneus wrote:"Chasten" I've occasionally heard a /t/ I think.
Both of those would make me blink, especially the latter.Salmoneus wrote: "Hasten" and "soften", where the derivation is clearer, usually don't have /t/ but often do and I certainly wouldn't blink when hearing it.
Re: Occurrence of spelling pronunciations
I say both of those with a /t/. I also say thistle with a /t/ because I learned the word from reading rather than speaking.
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť
kårroť
Re: Occurrence of spelling pronunciations
Here's an alternative theory: people say what they've heard. If the people around you say [ɔftn̩], you (may) say it too. (I don't rule out a spelling pronunciation, but we shouldn't resort to this explanation if "saying what other people say" covers it.)
I'm skeptical that people are doing amateur etymology in their heads. Who actually says "oft" out loud? Who encounters it in print without long having learned and spoken the word "often"? When you learn "signal", do you go back and add a [g] to "sign"?
(As for fasten, it's true that "fast" meaning "firm" is obsolete— but "hold fast" and "stand fast" are still quite current. Although I wouldn't expect anyone to link these with "fasten"!)
I'm skeptical that people are doing amateur etymology in their heads. Who actually says "oft" out loud? Who encounters it in print without long having learned and spoken the word "often"? When you learn "signal", do you go back and add a [g] to "sign"?
(As for fasten, it's true that "fast" meaning "firm" is obsolete— but "hold fast" and "stand fast" are still quite current. Although I wouldn't expect anyone to link these with "fasten"!)
Re: Occurrence of spelling pronunciations
And I say [ˈθɪθl̩] because I have some sort of weird progressive dental fricative harmony going on. :plinguoboy wrote:ISTR hearing the spelling pronunciation [ˈʧæstnˌ] before. Hearing both a /t/ and an /ey/ would be jarring.Salmoneus wrote:"Chasten" I've occasionally heard a /t/ I think.
Both of those would make me blink, especially the latter.Salmoneus wrote: "Hasten" and "soften", where the derivation is clearer, usually don't have /t/ but often do and I certainly wouldn't blink when hearing it.
Me. But I very consciously try to cultivate a stilted, slightly archaic style, and I don't use that particular register all the time.zompist wrote:Who actually says "oft" out loud?
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
Re: Occurrence of spelling pronunciations
One interesting case where it doesn't seem that the use of /-stl/ for "-stle" could be due to influence from a related word ending in /-st/ is "pestle" (unsurprisingly, it's not etymologically related to "pest", and I doubt that a significant number of speakers think of the words as being related).
The pronunciation with /-sl/ exists, and John Wells made a blog post where he indicates that he personally prefers /-sl/ and thinks of the /-stl/ variant as a spelling-pronunciation, but Daniel Jones describes "pestle" as an exception to the usual pattern and says that it is only rarely pronounced without a /t/.
Even if it is a spelling-pronunciation, /ˈpɛstl/ is not a particularly recent one at any rate, as it is the only form listed in Walker's Critical Pronunciation Dictionary (1791), which does not transcribe /t/ in words like "castle".
The OED says it comes from "< Anglo-Norman and Middle French pestel (c1180 in Old French; also in Anglo-Norman as pestle and in Old French as pestal ; now regional)" and that it has been spelled in English with a vowel letter between the "t" and "l" (e.g. "pestelle", "pestel", pistoll"). This seems to suggest that it may have been pronounced with stress on the second syllable early on. A late commenter on the Wells blog post brings up the etymology and argues that it means that the /t/ pronunciation is the "correct" one.
The pronunciation with /-sl/ exists, and John Wells made a blog post where he indicates that he personally prefers /-sl/ and thinks of the /-stl/ variant as a spelling-pronunciation, but Daniel Jones describes "pestle" as an exception to the usual pattern and says that it is only rarely pronounced without a /t/.
Even if it is a spelling-pronunciation, /ˈpɛstl/ is not a particularly recent one at any rate, as it is the only form listed in Walker's Critical Pronunciation Dictionary (1791), which does not transcribe /t/ in words like "castle".
The OED says it comes from "< Anglo-Norman and Middle French pestel (c1180 in Old French; also in Anglo-Norman as pestle and in Old French as pestal ; now regional)" and that it has been spelled in English with a vowel letter between the "t" and "l" (e.g. "pestelle", "pestel", pistoll"). This seems to suggest that it may have been pronounced with stress on the second syllable early on. A late commenter on the Wells blog post brings up the etymology and argues that it means that the /t/ pronunciation is the "correct" one.
Re: Occurrence of spelling pronunciations
vuln is a word , and seems to have been coined twice for two meanings ... one is jargon; the other, simply an uncommon word.zompist wrote:They're pretty hard to come by, but gamers have come up with "invuln".Imralu wrote:Does anyone know of another English word with /ln/ in a coda? I can only think of the name Milne.
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says:
Re: Occurrence of spelling pronunciations
I'd still count it as a spelling pronounciation even if learnt from someone else ... if the /t/ did entirely die out at some point and become resurrected from spelling. People do definitely learn the pronunciation of "often" with /t/ without influence from spelling. I don't think "spelling pronunciation" necessarily means that the individual speaker must have come up with the pronunciation from the spelling independently of others, does it?zompist wrote:Here's an alternative theory: people say what they've heard. If the people around you say [ɔftn̩], you (may) say it too. (I don't rule out a spelling pronunciation, but we shouldn't resort to this explanation if "saying what other people say" covers it.)
Glossing Abbreviations: COMP = comparative, C = complementiser, ACS / ICS = accessible / inaccessible, GDV = gerundive, SPEC / NSPC = specific / non-specific
________
MY MUSIC
________
MY MUSIC
Re: Occurrence of spelling pronunciations
Wouldn't it be more accurate to speak of a(n) "historical spelling pronunciation" in that case?Imralu wrote:People do definitely learn the pronunciation of "often" with /t/ without influence from spelling. I don't think "spelling pronunciation" necessarily means that the individual speaker must have come up with the pronunciation from the spelling independently of others, does it?
I mean, I guess I can see your point. When you call something, say, "a French borrowing", the implication isn't necessarily that the individual speaker who used it is responsible for borrowing it from French.