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.

Would any you guys rhyme 'prob'ly' with 'wobbly'?

I wouldn't, but maybe I'm using Danish morphophonology here, according
to which internal schwa can be elided in connected speech, but only if
you leave enough markers that the lost vowel can be recovered by the
listener (cf. French final schwa in the feminine).


Torsten