jc@mit-athena.UUCP (John Chambers) (03/29/85)
Hey, I just noticed something curious that might be worth a few comments from y'all out there. In the the phrase "I have it", I pronounce the 'v' voiced; while in "I have to" I pronounce the 'v' unvoiced. This might be considered assimilation, but no: "I have time" has a voiced 'v'. Also, if I listen to myself in introspective mode, it is obvious that my English-generating subroutines treat the two meanings as two different words. They are homographs; they are spelled the same, but have different pronunciations and meaning. Anyone else out there whose native English dialect treats this differently? I am a native of the Seattle area, so I suspect that this is a West-Coastism. In sloppy-speech mode, I might add that "I have to ..." comes out "I haftuh ...". (Boy, would it be nice if we had IPA symbols in ASCII.) -- John Chambers [...!decvax!mit-athena] If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the precipitate.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/03/85)
In article <136@mit-athena.UUCP> jc@mit-athena.UUCP (John Chambers) writes: >Hey, I just noticed something curious that might be worth a few >comments from y'all out there. In the the phrase "I have it", >I pronounce the 'v' voiced; while in "I have to" I pronounce >the 'v' unvoiced. > >This might be considered assimilation, but no: "I have time" >has a voiced 'v'. Also, if I listen to myself in introspective >mode, it is obvious that my English-generating subroutines >treat the two meanings as two different words. They are >homographs; they are spelled the same, but have different >pronunciations and meaning. > I do it the same. The basic reason is that "have to" is essentially a "helping" or auxillary verb nearly synonymous to "must", while "have" by itself is a normal(main) verb meaning essentially "own/possess/hold". Thus your observations show that in modern English the whole of "have to" is a *single* word, showing normal *intra*word assimilation. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
sullivan@harvard.ARPA (John M. Sullivan) (04/05/85)
> In the the phrase "I have it", > I pronounce the 'v' voiced; while in "I have to" I pronounce > the 'v' unvoiced. > This might be considered assimilation, but no: "I have time" > has a voiced 'v'. > John Chambers [...!decvax!mit-athena] This could just be realted to the position of stress on 'have' in 'have to' and on the direct object in the other examples. But I agree that the 'have to' use seems like a different word. -- John M. Sullivan sullivan@harvard
long@oliveb.UUCP (A Panther Modern) (04/07/85)
sullivan@harvard.ARPA (John M. Sullivan) writes: | > In the the phrase "I have it", | > I pronounce the 'v' voiced; while in "I have to" I pronounce | > the 'v' unvoiced. | > This might be considered assimilation, but no: "I have time" | > has a voiced 'v'. | > John Chambers [...!decvax!mit-athena] | | This could just be realted to the position of stress on 'have' in | 'have to' and on the direct object in the other examples. | But I agree that the 'have to' use seems like a different word. The 'have to' use is a different word, meaning "must". Does anyone know how these two uses of 'have' have evolved? Dave Long -- gnoL evaD Beware of {msoft,allegra,gsgvax,fortune,hplabs,idi,ios, Black ICE nwuxd,ihnp4,tolrnt,tty3b,vlsvax1,zehntel}!oliveb!long