Re[2]: [tied] English Haplology and Degemination

At 8:24:49 PM on Friday, February 29, 2008, Richard
Wordingham wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>>> <February> also has the natural development route
>>> */febrjU&ri:/ > /febjU&ri:/ > /febj&ri:/

>> This step isn't particularly natural: the previous stage
>> is ['fEbjU,(w)Eri] or the like

> Which form are you querying? [...]

None (except later the starred form): I'm objecting to the
step /febjU&ri:/ > /febj&ri:/, on the grounds that the third
syllable of your /febjU&ri:/ bears secondary stress.

>>> The first stage may actually be <February> > <Febuary> -
>>> the latter is a common misspelling.

>> I'd be very much surprised if it were by way of your starred
>> form: [rjU] is pretty unlikely even for those varieties
>> (like mine) that have [njU]~[n^U], [djU]~[d^U], etc.

> Has it always been impossible?

Very possibly not, though I don't actually know; I still
think that it's the most likely route.

>>> 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/,

>> While I don't doubt that it has been, I've never heard it so
>> pronounced, however. In my experience it always has
>> secondary stress on the final syllable, ['pEr&,lEl] or
>> ['pær&,lEl], which makes the rest of the derivation rather
>> less likely.

> Try the near tongue twister 'parallel lines'.

For me there's still perceptible stress on [lEl]; at the
moment I'm too self-conscious to say whether it's tertiary
or equal secondary with [laInz]. If any syllable is going
to drop out, it's the second. (And far from being a near
tongue-twister, for me it's a rather ordinary expression!)

Brian