HF$IBBO:LIYM (?) -- (Parenthesis)
mc2499 at mclink.it
Wed Sep 27 10:21:19 EDT 2000
At 12.02 27/09/00 +0000, Ben Crick wrote:
>On Tue 26 Sep 2000 (18:40:41 +0200), mc2499 at mclink.it wrote:
>> And in connected speech in English (ie spoken normally):
>> Bush showed a lot.
>> There is a double $ going from Bush to showed. Try and say it with only
>> one and you end up with
>> Bush owed a lot.
>> So, is there really no difference in pronunciation?
> Well yes, there is. You put a glottal stop ('aleph or `ayin; or a Shewa)
> between the last Sh of Bush and the first Sh of showed.
Definitely not! There is no glottal stop there in connected speech -- that
would be "unconnected" speech and quite unnatural! To hear the natural
pronunciation -- you've compromised yourself as an exemplar(!) --, you'll
need to solicit a useful phrase from someone who is not concious of what
you are testing otherwise the person will insert a glottal stop!
There is simply a double $, ie the $ is held from the end of Bush to the
start of showed. The problem for us is that we will insert a glottal stop
to make the point which is not what we normally do, though we would
normally communicate the difference.
> The same thing occurs
> with the often spoken "Bus stop", which becomes "bus top" in lazy speech.
Again in connected speech, although you don't put a glottal stop between
the two /s/, you can hear the difference between "bus stop" and "bus top"
because the /s/ is discretely *longer* in the first. (This is not to
contradict the idea that in "lazy speech" only one /s/ is said.)
There are in fact numerous double consonants in English (between words). On
the radio you might hear of "a hot track" which doesn't get pronounced "a
hot rack", nor is there a glottal stop insertion. A "black cat" not a
"black at". "I love Vera" not "I love era." Etc.
> Handel's Messiah, our choir director insisted that we articulate "He shall
> reign for 'ever and 'ever" with glottal stops, not by singing it "he shall
> reign forever endeavour".
This is a somewhat unnatural situation yielding a somewhat unnatural
pronunciation. "he shall reign forever endeavour" is somewhat more natural,
though the first "e" in "endeavour" would be a schwa making the difference
with the normal pronunciation of "endeavour". (And living in England you
would normally "re"-insert the /r/ after the "for" [pronounced /f@/ -- @ =
schwa -- before a consonant] as one might in French as a liason with the
> So do we say it Ha$:$iBBo:LiYM or HF$iBBo:LiYM ? Does it matter?
Here in Italy the word for "stupid" is "scemo" (/$e:mo/). In the Roman
suburbs you see someone you know, and you might call out in a friendly
manner "a scemo" which will be pronounced /a$$e:mo:/. The doubling of the $
is clearly heard; in fact not hearing it would be strange.
Although a doubled $ is strange for speakers of English, why couldn't it
have been heard by the listeners of a language in which doubled consonants
More information about the b-hebrew