Re: English Haplology and Degemination (was meaning of the Germanic

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
>
> > Oh, come on. "Prob'ly" is so common that it gets recorded by
> pronouncing
> > dictionaries. So is "particu'ly". Of course it's hard to

distinguish

> > "abrupt haplology" (bVbV --> bV) from "syncope cum degemination"

(bVbV

> > --> bbV --> bV) especially if the first vowel is unstressed, but

it's

> > the effect that counts. I've heard "parall'ism" more than once,

and

> here
> > vowel loss with degemination is unlikely, since the

haplologically (or

> > should I say "haplogically") lost vowel is full in the original

form.

>
> This is a different route to the one I had in mind. In what

follows,

> I will transliterate IPA to X-SAMPA. You are describing a

development

> from /prQb&b&li:/ (and similar), which leaves the intermediate stage
> /prQb&li:/. I was talking of /prQb&bli:/ > /prQbbli:/ > /prQbli:/.
> The syncopation is regular in my speech. Notice that the

degemination

> is happening in a cluster of three or more consonants.
>
> Peter Gray's examples of "lib'ry" <library> and "Feb'ry" <February>
> need not be haplology - they are parallel to the common homophony of
> <secretary> and <sectary>, where /r&/ has vocalised (after
> syncopation?) as /&/ (/r/ and /&/ seem to function as a
> semivowel-vowel pair in non-rhotic English), and then been

(further?)

> syncopated. A simpler explanation of "lib'ry" is that it is also
> syncopation followed by degemination. <February> also has the

natural

> development route */febrjU&ri:/ > /febjU&ri:/ > /febj&ri:/
> /febri:/.
> The first stage may actually be <February> > <Febuary> - the latter
> is a common misspelling.
>
> I don't think "parall'ism" is as clear case as it may seem.
> <parallel> may be pronounced as a single foot, /"p{r&l&l/, in which
> case /"p{r&l%lIz&m/ (% = secondary stress) and /"p{r&l&%lIz&m/ are
> obvious pronunciations of <parallelism>, so degemination is again a
> possibility, though less compelling than before.
>
> Richard.

I agree with you, Richard.

Marius