Language/pronunciation changes

[Samai139]

I understand that our language (American English) is constantly changing---some call language a "living thing." We add words with alacrity--example: "selfie" finding its way into dictionaries. We accept variations in the definition of words quite easily: gay going from a simple adjective to a powerful noun.

My observation has to do with pronunciation rather than vocabulary:

Are we reaching the point where "tuh" is the acceptable pronunciation for to?? Or is it still a regional or generational phenomenon? When I hear "tuh" coming out of the mouths of highly educated individuals, I cringe. Any others out there who have the same reaction? Or is this just amother example of an old man who clings to past standards?

[doya66]

I don't see it as anything new. I'm a 48 year old Midwesterner. If the word isn't stressed in the sentence, we never pronounce it like, "too." "I didn't think to say it," would always sound like, "I didn THINK tuh SAY it." Unstressed vowels always tend to turn into "uh." Maybe in places where they speak more slowly the phenomenon is more pronounced.

[Guest boiworship08]

The other seemingly irrevocable change is the misuse of the object me, as in "me and Jason went to the movies." Almost everyone under 30 speaks and writes this way now, whether college-educated or not. I noticed that Elliot Rodger used it in his manifesto.

[+ Gar1eth]

I understand that our language (American English) is constantly changing---some call language a "living thing." We add words with alacrity--example: "selfie" finding its way into dictionaries. We accept variations in the definition of words quite easily: gay going from a simple adjective to a powerful noun.

My observation has to do with pronunciation rather than vocabulary:

Are we reaching the point where "tuh" is the acceptable pronunciation for to?? Or is it still a regional or generational phenomenon? When I hear "tuh" coming out of the mouths of highly educated individuals, I cringe. Any others out there who have the same reaction? Or is this just amother example of an old man who clings to past standards?

 

Over the course of my life, I've lived in the South (Texas and Louisiana), Midwest (Ohio and Wisconsin), and the Pacific Northwest (Washington State). I don't think I've ever heard 'to' pronounced that way- or if I ever have, it hasn't been often enough to make an impression on me. The only exceptions I can really think of are maybe watching old movies/TV shows/certain plays like The Three Stooges where I'm also hearing actors use phrases like 'youse wise guys' or possibly if you are using the verb phrase 'gonna go to...' some place. But I definitely don't think I've heard it used by educated people in most situations.

 

When I say the word to myself, I hear it as 'too' in my mind.

 

 

 

Gman

[+ Gar1eth]

I've noticed 'whom' dropping more and more by the way- and I'm not talking about in spoken language where it's often dropped. I'm referring to professionally edited novels where I don't think the authors or editors were making a character choice by dropping it. I also think I've seen it dropped a few times in recent NYT articles.

 

Gman

[+ Charlie]

I have been struck more often these days by overcorrection ("She went with he and I," "I didn't know whom he was," etc.), even in respectable journalism. The confusion between subject and object pronouns is probably a result of dropping grammar instruction from most English classes; I was amazed recently when a high school English teacher asked me why "with he and I" was incorrect--she really didn't know the reason!

 

As for "tuh," doya66 is correct that unstressed vowels often turn into what linguists call the "schwa," an undifferentiated sound that is often written in English as "uh." When it's clear from context that the intended word is "to," sometimes the whole word is elided and disappears into the preceding word ("want to" becomes "wanna" [pronounced WAH-nuh.). Even an educated speaker will do this in casual conversation. With the increasing emphasis on compression in written communication because of the influence of texting, I expect to eventually see the disappearance of "to" altogether where the reader automatically supplies it--in fact, I already see it missing in many newspaper articles, along with "at." Even as articulate a poster as BSR uses "gotta" and "gonna" in his post today about the movie "The Stranger by the Lake."

[+ Gar1eth]

The confusion between subject and object pronouns is probably a result of dropping grammar instruction from most English classes; I was amazed recently when a high school English teacher asked me why "with he and I" was incorrect--she really didn't know the reason!

 

That was my thought too. My grammar is not perfect, but I had two years of Latin in high school. I've found that has really helped me a lot over the years. One of the main problems deciding between 'who' and 'whom' is in complex sentences where the word is part of an 'objective' clause- ie a clause serving as an indirect/direct object or object of a preposition- but the word (who/whom) is being used as the subject of the clause. In that case while 'whom' may initially sound correct, the word 'who' should be used.

 

Gman

[Samai139]

Some interesting replies: Thanks Charlie for your linguistic explanation--hadn't thought about the rational or contextual change from "to" to "tuh"---my original thought was that it was lazy speech--now I'll take a more tolerant stance. And agree with you that many, if not most, speakers and writers have difficulty with subject and verb agreement--and yes it is probably due to lack of grammar being taught.

What I found strange was the two replies from Mid-westeners: one from Cincinnati, Ohio which fits my definition of Mid-west and the other a self-proclaimed Mid-Westener who doesn't locate himself.

One says he has rarely heard it and the other finds it nothing new and commonplace and says it is just acceptable as a speech pattern --and puts it down to the fluidity of speaking.

For those who don't recall hearing "tuh" or didn't catch it---watch Brian Williams' interview with President Obama. Not sure if the President uses it more in casual conversations than in formal speeches but it does reflect his Chicago roots, if it is a Mid-western thing.

[+ Gar1eth]

What I found strange was the two replies from Mid-westeners: one from Cincinnati, Ohio which fits my definition of Mid-west and the other a self-proclaimed Mid-Westener who doesn't locate himself.

One says he has rarely heard it and the other finds it nothing new and commonplace and says it is just acceptable as a speech pattern --and puts it down to the fluidity of speaking.

 

Now that I am more awake and thinking about things- it's possible that I've heard 'tuh' more than I initially said. And may in fact say it occasionally myself after using constructions like "I'm gonna go tuh the store" although even now when I say it to myself - I hear ''too'. Possibly I might SAY 'tuh' more VERBALLY at sometimes than others but when thinking I use the 'correct' pronunciation.

 

As to native, educated Cincinnatians aside from a few regionalisms- in many ways they sound to my ears very neutral and similar to what I grew up with in big city Texas. However listening to people from Cleveland - they often speak with a more Northeastern type of speech pattern.

 

Gman

[+ Axiom2001]

Simply writing-- far too many in this country misuse the language when writing as well as in speaking, and I am furious! I really abhor hearing so-called educated folks misusing as well as miswriting the language of which I've been most cognizant as well as use. As a former teacher of it, the problem has been compounded!

 

[Although I admire the intellect of our president, I've become annoyed with him at times when I''ve heard a slip or misuse of some words in our language.]

[+ Charlie]

As a former teacher of it, the problem has been compounded!

 

]

Oh, dear, Axiom! I can't believe you just made such a basic error in that sentence.

[bostonman]

Now that I am more awake and thinking about things- it's possible that I've heard 'tuh' more than I initially said. And may in fact say it occasionally myself after using constructions like "I'm gonna go tuh the store" although even now when I say it to myself - I hear ''too'. Possibly I might SAY 'tuh' more VERBALLY at sometimes than others but when thinking I use the 'correct' pronunciation.

 

You might actually even be saying "I'm gonna goda the store," as we tend to soften t's in practical conversational speech as well.

[+ Charlie]

 

For those who don't recall hearing "tuh" or didn't catch it---watch Brian Williams' interview with President Obama. Not sure if the President uses it more in casual conversations than in formal speeches but it does reflect his Chicago roots, if it is a Mid-western thing.

Obama doesn't have mid-Western roots--he transplanted himself in Chicago as an already educated adult. His natural language patterns were established while he was growing up in Hawai'i, but since he was reared by his mother and maternal grandparents, who were mid-Westerners, some elements of their speech undoubtedly rubbed off on him.

[rvwnsd]

Some interesting replies: Thanks Charlie for your linguistic explanation--hadn't thought about the rational or contextual change from "to" to "tuh"---my original thought was that it was lazy speech--now I'll take a more tolerant stance. And agree with you that many, if not most, speakers and writers have difficulty with subject and verb agreement--and yes it is probably due to lack of grammar being taught.

What I found strange was the two replies from Mid-westeners: one from Cincinnati, Ohio which fits my definition of Mid-west and the other a self-proclaimed Mid-Westener who doesn't locate himself.

One says he has rarely heard it and the other finds it nothing new and commonplace and says it is just acceptable as a speech pattern --and puts it down to the fluidity of speaking.

For those who don't recall hearing "tuh" or didn't catch it---watch Brian Williams' interview with President Obama. Not sure if the President uses it more in casual conversations than in formal speeches but it does reflect his Chicago roots, if it is a Mid-western thing.

 

I find it comically ironic that a post about pronunciation and the decline of teaching grammar in schools is so poorly written. Like a moth drawn to a flame, I couldn't resist the temptation to point out some flaws in the post. My apologies in advance for having caved.

 

In the first phrase, the colon is used incorrectly. A colon is used to start or explain an enumeration. However, no enumeration follows the colon. Then, double dashes are used instead of, well, I'm not sure what. The phrases are stand alone sentences, so a period after each sentence would be correct. For example, the post reads

 

"...Thanks Charlie for your linguistic explanation--hadn't thought about the rational or contextual change from "to" to "tuh"---my original thought was that it was lazy speech--now I'll take a more tolerant stance."

 

I would have written it as "Thanks, Charlie, for your linguistic explanation. I hadn't thought about the rational or contextual change from 'to' to 'tuh.' [That isn't how I would have worded the sentence, but this isn't about wording. It is about punctuation. Also, I used single quotes because the sentences are encased in double quotes. Your use of double quotes is correct.] My original thought was that it was lazy speech. Now I'll take a more tolerant stance."

 

I won't go to town on use of double dashes and the overall clumsiness of the sentence "And agree with you that many, if not most, speakers and writers have difficulty with subject and verb agreement--and yes it is probably due to lack of grammar being taught," but I will point out that you misspelled "Mid-westerners" by omitting the letter "r" before the "n." Perhaps that is how you pronounce the word. By the way, in contemporary writing "Mid-west" and "Mid-western" are typically written as "Midwest" and "Midwestern."

 

Also, you wrote "What I found strange was the two replies from Mid-westeners: one from Cincinnati, Ohio which fits my definition of Mid-west and the other a self-proclaimed Mid-Westener who doesn't locate himself." The "other...self-proclaimed Midwesterner" wouldn't "locate himself," as he probably knows where he is. Since we are the ones who don't know where he is, he would identify or state his location. Also, the Midwest covers a wide geographical area and is very diverse. In Chicago, the "tuh" and "too" pronunciations of "to" are equally prevalent and cross over the various local dialects. As you have probably noticed, not everyone from Chicago sounds like "Da Mare" just like not everyone from NYC sounds like Nanny Fine in "The Nanny."

 

Finally, I am surprised that you never learned about the schwa sound when you studied language and grammar in school. I think I first heard about it in third grade while attending the Chicago Public Schools in the 1970's. It, as well as other linguistic concepts, was explored more extensively in the fourth grade. The term "schwa" was first introduced into English in the 1890's, so it isn't a contemporary linguistic invention. Other examples of the schwa are the "o" in "eloquent," the "i" in "pencil," and the "ai"combination in "mountain." It is the most common vowel sound in the English language.

 

PS: In the spirit of full disclosure I will acknowledge that I had to Google "schwa" in order to gather facts about its history.

[Samai139]

Thank you rvwnsd. Your corrections of my poor punctuation and other errors are noted. The error in Midwesterners was a typographical mistake which I did not catch. Schwa still remains somewhat of a mystery and I'll have to do further study. I shall try to be more careful in future posts.

[Epigonos]

There are two current trends in American English that drive me crazy. 1.) More and more we no longer pronounce the final “g” in words ending in” ing”. Thus we are workin, goin, playin, readin etc., 2) We are ALSO rapidly replacing the verb “to say” with “to go”. Thus he goes what time are you leavin? and “Then I go I don’t know yet.

 

In reality the bottom line is simply that I’m old and there are many aspect of the world I currently line in that I don’t like. Nobody reads Shakespeare anymore, nobody listens to Mozart anymore, classic ballet is dying for lack of audiences, and symphonic music and opera are hurting. I guess I need to either lighten up or die.

[+ Gar1eth]

There are two current trends in American English that drive me crazy. 1.) More and more we no longer pronounce the final “g” in words ending in” ing”. Thus we are workin, goin, playin, readin etc.,

 

This just can't be very common among educated people. I will admit that my 'g' is often fairly unstressed at the ends of these words depending on the rhythm of the sentence.

 

 

2) We are ALSO rapidly replacing the verb “to say” with “to go”.

Thus he goes what time are you leavin? and “Then I go I don’t know yet.

 

And I haven't really heard anyone from a middle/upper middle class background using this- unless they were imitating someone from the Deep South.

 

But maybe I'm just not seeing it. I don't get out that much. I know no one, even the twenty-somethings, in my family would talk like this.

 

Gman

[BSR]

Even as articulate a poster as BSR uses "gotta" and "gonna" in his post today about the movie "The Stranger by the Lake."

Yuppers, guilty as charged! I will say in my defense that my use of casual colloquialisms like "gotta" and "gonna" is quite intentional. In the Lounge area, while discussing something as everyday as a movie, I will say "gonna" and the like. In contrast, I would never use such casual language in a Politics & Religion post about the VA medical scandal. And if I ever do, please bring it to my attention.

[Samai139]

I just saw the typographical error I made in the title of this thread---it should be "changes" not "cahanges"

Sorry about that and thanks to all who politely ignored it.

[bostonman]

1.) More and more we no longer pronounce the final “g” in words ending in” ing”. Thus we are workin, goin, playin, readin etc.,

 

But you do realize that the g shouldn't really ever be fully pronounced in those cases? It's not a g on its own there, it's part of the "ng" consonant cluster, which has a sound of its own. In fact, just like the schwa has its own IPA symbol, the "upside down e" or "ə", the English "ng" sound is represented by the symbol "ŋ" - it is not just the simple idea of an n followed by a g.

 

Say any of those "ing" words out loud. If you have to make the effort to finish the "g" sound (for lack of a better way to type it - "workin-guh" for instance), it's not only wrong, but you will hear that you NEVER really say it that way in everyday speech (if ever). The best way to describe the effect of the proper "ng" is that you should feel a prolonged "n" sound being made in the back of your mouth, but you don't finish it off with the release that you would if you were going to attack a hard g.

 

In reality, the speech tendency you describe is to make the "ing" sound with a schwa and less of an n - more like "work-ən" (pronounced closer to "work-'n") as opposed to "work-iŋ."

 

There are dialects where sometimes a hard g does wind up where it doesn't seem to belong. Most of us would pronounce Long Island, for instance, as "Loŋ Island" - but a native Long Islander would actually say the G and give us the pronounciation "Lon-Guy-Land."

 

The technical term for the English "ng" is a velar nasal sound - "velar" meaning a sound that is made by the back of the tongue touching the soft palate (try it and see, if you don't believe me, lol) and "nasal" because the sound resonates in the nasal cavity (i.e. you can feel it in your nose).

 

SOMETIMES you can have "ng" both ways. I have heard the word "finger," for instance, pronounced both with the ŋ and with a full g. I'm not sure if either is a regionalism or not. With a word like "singing," though, I think you're more apt to hear "siŋiŋ" rather than with either g fully pronounced.

 

The real problem is - English is a damned inconsistent language.

[Irtwo]

I just saw the typographical error I made in the title of this thread---it should be "changes" not "cahanges"

Sorry about that and thanks to all who politely ignored it.

 

Lol! I thought you were just being clever, mocking how people change words by purposely adding the "a" in "changes".

[+ Gar1eth]

But you do realize that the g shouldn't really ever be fully pronounced in those cases? It's not a g on its own there, it's part of the "ng" consonant cluster, which has a sound of its own. In fact, just like the schwa has its own IPA symbol, the "upside down e" or "ə", the English "ng" sound is represented by the symbol "ŋ" - it is not just the simple idea of an n followed by a g.

 

Say any of those "ing" words out loud. If you have to make the effort to finish the "g" sound (for lack of a better way to type it - "workin-guh" for instance), it's not only wrong, but you will hear that you NEVER really say it that way in everyday speech (if ever). The best way to describe the effect of the proper "ng" is that you should feel a prolonged "n" sound being made in the back of your mouth, but you don't finish it off with the release that you would if you were going to attack a hard g.

 

In reality, the speech tendency you describe is to make the "ing" sound with a schwa and less of an n - more like "work-ən" (pronounced closer to "work-'n") as opposed to "work-iŋ."

 

There are dialects where sometimes a hard g does wind up where it doesn't seem to belong. Most of us would pronounce Long Island, for instance, as "Loŋ Island" - but a native Long Islander would actually say the G and give us the pronounciation "Lon-Guy-Land."

 

The technical term for the English "ng" is a velar nasal sound - "velar" meaning a sound that is made by the back of the tongue touching the soft palate (try it and see, if you don't believe me, lol) and "nasal" because the sound resonates in the nasal cavity (i.e. you can feel it in your nose).

 

SOMETIMES you can have "ng" both ways. I have heard the word "finger," for instance, pronounced both with the ŋ and with a full g. I'm not sure if either is a regionalism or not. With a word like "singing," though, I think you're more apt to hear "siŋiŋ" rather than with either g fully pronounced.

 

The real problem is - English is a damned inconsistent language.

 

+ 100!!!!

 

Gman

[Steven_Draker]

Language is constantly evolving and changing with the times to fit the needs of the people who use it on a daily basis.

 

"Language is one of the things that constantly change, and not over the years, but several times in the course of an average life span. The engines behind these changes are the people, a researcher proposes, saying that the process through which language changes to reflect daily routines and actions is very similar to the evolution of animal and plant species trying to adapt to their environment. Dutch scientist Frank Landsbergen, who is based at the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (now), believes that this angle on language may help explain some of its mysteries, over which researchers have been scratching their heads for a long time.

 

The expert believes that even a single individual can spark a change in the language, even if it's as small as putting a new word in the dictionary.

 

 

If the rest of society accepts the new word, and adopts it as its own, then, for all intents and purposes, it belongs to everyone. That should of course be reflected by the official collection of a language's words, which is the dictionary. This approach to investigating linguistics may provide scientists with a number of advantages and clarifications, ScienceDaily reports.

 

Changes in language include a multitude of factors, such as pronunciation, choice of words, alloted meaning, and variations in all of the above. Through use by the general population, some phrases or single words may end up signifying a completely different meaning than the one in the dictionary. Instances in which this thing happens are very common, and are found especially in the colloquial approach to language, experts say. Change is therefore based on the people themselves, who make their own language evolve.

 

In a computer model that the expert himself developed, it became transparent that the actions of individuals could affect the perception of the community. A number of “actors” were modeled in this simulation, of which all had a set of words (language), and a predefined way of using them (the current form, as it were). Landsbergen could introduce variations in the meaning of words, and study how they spread within the small community.

 

In a new paper detailing the results, a part of a project entitled “Modeling cultural evolution. A parallel investigation of changes in bird song and human language,” the expert reveals that a single point of origin for change can be extremely effective in modifying the meaning of words, and in making them evolve."

 

source: http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-Language-Changes-128213.shtml

[Steven_Draker]

The real problem is - English is a damned inconsistent language.

 

Putting things into perspective ... if you think that English is an inconsistent language, try to learn French grammar with all the "exceptions" that come along.

 

For a non-native speaker (and mine is far from being perfect, so apologize in advance for any mistakes), I find English much easier to learn than French, German or Russian for that matter.

[bostonman]

Putting things into perspective ... if you think that English is an inconsistent language, try to learn French grammar with all the "exceptions" that come along.

 

For a non-native speaker (and mine is far from being perfect, so apologize in advance for any mistakes), I find English much easier to learn than French, German or Russian for that matter.

 

Oh, indeed - especially in terms of learning a foreign language, ANY language can have its pitfalls. But at least the romance languages (and I assume Russian as well) have more fixed rules of pronunciation. Except of course when dialects come into play.

 

But anyone, say, that's studied a foreign language in school (Spanish and French, I assume being the most popular choices, at least in grade school) has to deal with myriads of irregular verbs and the like. Grammar is a whole other can of worms indeed.