Timeline for How does the nonsense word "frabjous" conform to English phonotactics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 16, 2021 at 9:17 | comment | added | tea-and-cake | Soldier's a good one! Although that little word is packed with potential for variant pronunciations... I started off speaking RP and had [sɒuɫdjə] but after a few decades in Scotland I now have [sowdʒʌɾ]... but anyway. Although I mostly agree with you, I have to try being a wee bit obdurate, and offer... <obdurate>. I definitely yod-coalesce that so it contains [bdʒə], how about you? Makes me think that <frabduous> would be a workable spelling. Normally the last syllable of that would be /uʊs/ but I could see that reducing to /əs/. | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 5:50 | comment | added | Rosie F | @tea-and-cake Just thought of one example. Soldier. | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 5:39 | comment | added | Rosie F | @tea-and-cake Sorry, I can't have been clear enough. Yes, a plosive may precede morpheme-initial /dʒ/, e.g. object, flapjack, inkjet. But I was thinking specifically about the Latinate ending "-ous" preceded by a /dʒ/ sound. I am indeed British. In my southern English accent there is yod-coalescence of the Latinate "ti" to /ʃ/ (action), "tu" to /tʃu/ or /tʃə/ (actual, picture) and "du" likewise (gradual, procedure). But typically not "di" -- I don't have, nor hear in others, the yod-coalescence implied by the eye-dialect spelling Injun. | |
| Apr 15, 2021 at 23:01 | comment | added | supercat | @RosieF: The notion that "g" pronounced "j" can't occur after a plosive consonant seems rather dodgy to me. | |
| Apr 15, 2021 at 19:32 | comment | added | tea-and-cake | Where are you from, Rosie? In lots of British dialects at least (including mine), yod-coalescence is widespread. Admittedly, /'stʃudʒəs/ for <studious> would be a bit much, but /'stʃudʒiəs/ would be unremarkable... In any case, your <gorgeous> is an excellent example, complete with the right stress pattern! And <frabgious> looks, to me, like a real English word. I don't follow your last point. If we're thinking about morphemes, a suffix <geous> is indeed very implausible, but from a purely phonotactic point of view, hasn't the example of <object> shown that /bdʒ/ is perfectly OK? | |
| Apr 15, 2021 at 19:20 | comment | added | Rosie F | Speech would, I feel, have to be exceptionally sloppy for "-dious" to get pronounced /dʒəs/. Fortunately, though, there are two word-endings that are typically pronounced /dʒəs/: "-geous" as in "gorgeous" and "gious" as in "contagious". So let's consider "frabgeous" and "frabgious". There is still a problem: in such an ending, "g" can only occur after a vowel sound (and either a vowel letter or "r"). "l" or "n" (as in "indulgent" or "dungeon") would at least be plausible. But that consonant cluster /bdʒ/ still isn't plausible. | |
| Apr 15, 2021 at 14:46 | comment | added | Barmar | I can imagine the word starting as <frabious> (a la <studious>) and altering over time to <frabjous>. @tea-and-cake | |
| Apr 15, 2021 at 13:02 | history | edited | tea-and-cake | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Wrong brackets for pronunciation
|
| Apr 15, 2021 at 12:58 | comment | added | tea-and-cake | Interesting question! So... let's see, for example, the made-up word <frabject> (also with a Latinate suffix) looks pretty unremarkable. So my answer would be both yes and no. I don't think <j> is necessarily out-of-place in a Latinate suffix, but specifically, <jous> is, well, weird. | |
| Apr 15, 2021 at 12:51 | comment | added | Pete855217 | Is the problem with the 'look' of the word a function of the use of the root's last letter 'J' - a letter not used in Latin (except as an 'I'), even though that last letter is the general connecting point to '-tious' or '-dious' suffix? | |
| Apr 15, 2021 at 12:09 | history | edited | tea-and-cake | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Reordered a sentence to clarify structure.
|
| Apr 15, 2021 at 11:44 | history | answered | tea-and-cake | CC BY-SA 4.0 |