Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

19

The answer to your question depends to a large extent on whether you are using IPA to represent a phonemic transcription of the word, or a phonetic transcription. In either case, your option (a) is absolutely not correct. IPA /t͡ʃeɪd/ (or /t͡ʃɛɪd/, depending on how you choose to transcribe diphthongs) would as regularly as possibly be represented ...


16

The first bunch are indeed "a hidden regularity", just like a fossilized skeleton. The second bunch are a different phenomenon completely that I won't touch on here. The first bunch are all evidence of what Indo-Europeanists call the "Yodated Causative", a -y suffix that formed a causative/inchoative stem when added to a verb root, just like a later en ...


14

Short answer: "zh" and "j" are not pronounced in the same way. Using the International Phonetic Alphabet, the "zh" digraph would be transcribed as [ʒ], while the "j" letter would be [dʒ]. The "zh" sound occurs at the beginning of the name "Jacques" [ʒɔk], and in the middle of the word "leisure" [liʒɚ]. The "j" sound is two IPA symbols because it is a ...


13

After digging for a while, I found the answer in a paper called Assimilation at a Distance by Wayne P. Lawrence.1 It's a little dated (2000), but also cites studies from 1993 and earlier describing this phenomenon. The recent history of American English includes a sound change that seems to have gone unattested in the scholarly literature.1 This is the ...


13

The sound of French /u/ (a close front rounded vowel) is denoted [y]. Sugar is from French sucre [sykʀ(ə)], and sure is from French sur (e) [syːʀ]. Middle English kept that vowel originally—as [sykrə] and [syːr(ə)], respectively—but over time it was transformed into [ju] (like modern you). What was previously [sy-] thus became [sju-] ...


13

It actually used to be pronounced /lɪkoɹˈɛs/, as evidenced by the Old French word we borrowed it from, "licoresse". The last phoneme probably shifted from /s/ to /ʃ/ due to a similar process that happened with the words "pressure" and "sugar". Why it changed and not other similar words? Who knows. English speakers for a long time have had a twisted lack of ...


12

The reason something pronounced [ʃ] ("sh") would ever get the spelling "ti" is because of palatalization. Basically, the "io" diphthong contains a palatal consonant [j] ("y" sound), which, in certain cases, pulls the place of articulation of other consonants towards it (e.g. t->ʃ). The palatalization process is no longer active in these words spelled with ...


12

For the second time today, I feel reminded of ghoti. There's an interesting essay linked from that Wikipedia page, and I humbly direct you to it: "Hou tu pranownse Inglish". If you don't want to read the entire thing (but I recommend it!), the rule you are looking for is number 14 on that list: 14. ci or ti becomes $ before a vowel: gracious = ...


11

This slang contraction appears to be too new for most dictionaries or Google NGrams. Since it's slang and new, I took at look at social networking and the web for ideas. More commonly used forms often lead to standard forms over time, all else being equal. Urban Dictionary lists both cas and cazh, the former having more votes there. Google Searches ...


10

This interesting page explains that sugar used to be pronounced originally with a common su sound, but (emphases mine): (...) sometime in the Middle English period the initial letters su shifted to the pronunciation they now have. If you relax the mouth and tongue somewhat when you are saying the older form, your pronunciation shifts to the ...


9

The phenomenon has been studied by sociolinguists, beginning with Labov. This isn’t my area, so I can’t give you up-to-date references. The same, or a similar, phenomenon is found in Sydney, Australia, where I grew up. I hasten to add though, the pronunciation isn’t /ʃtɹɛs/(*) , but /çtɹɛs/: i.e., a voiceless palatal fricative (as in German ich), not a ...


8

I take it that what you want is how to spell a word that is understood when spoken but which is not (yet) in a dictionary with a generally recognized/recognizable spelling — that is, a spelling for the shortening of casual to the first syllable, which in IPA is /kæʒ/. First, the bad news. There is no accepted consistent spelling for such a sound in ...


8

Not always, but sometimes. This depends highly on the languages involved, and on how they’ve been transliterated into the Latin alphabet (if they’re not not normally written in it). Zh almost(?) never occurs in English itself. In transliterations from Russian and other Cyrillic languages (eg Dr Zhivago, bozhe moi, …), it represents the sound [ʒ], a voiced ...


7

I do this. It is called palatalization and is caused by the "tr" combo more than anything. The same process also occurs without "s", and with "dr". I often say, for example, "tree" as [tʃri] ("chree") and "drier" as [dʒrajɚ] ("jrier"). These variants don't come from Yiddish, German, or any other language. It is simply a natural phonological process that ...


7

The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English has this: shtuck; schtuck; schtook; stuk noun trouble. Not Yiddish despite appearances, although probably formed on the Yiddish model of a reduplicated word commencing with a ‘sh’ sound, in which case ‘shtuck’ is a variant of ‘stuck’ (in a difficult situation) UK, 1936. The OED ...


7

Brinton et.al. *Lexicalization and Language Change say that “in PGmc. the causative was formed derivationally by past singular of verb + -j-; umlaut led eventually to the formation of non-causative/causative pairs like sit/set (the latter is < PGmc. sat ‘sit-PAST’ + j- CAUSATIVE); see also lie/lay, sit/set, fall/fell, or drink/drench or the N/V pair ...


6

Palatal vowels (i), semivowels (y), and liquids (r) often influence the sound of preceding consonants, a process called palatalization. This is most obvious with dental consonants like t and s, which typically become tch and sh. For example, train often sounds like tchrain. Palatalization is consistent for some English forms, like the shun sound of the ...


5

I have always pronounced liquorice with 's' not 'sh'. I had never heard it pronounced as 'sh' until I moved from Scotland to England, so as far as I'm concerned, the English pronounce it incorrectly and the Scots pronounce it correctly.


5

The first part of 'sugar' used to be pronounced more like ''sue''. The vowel in that syllable is a high, back vowel and sometimes consonants change to be more like the vowels that are near them. It's called assimilation.


5

I've noticed many Scottish and Irish Gaelic words to be spelled with an s, followed by a vowel, and pronounced like sh. Think about the way Sean Connery speaks (not to mention how the Se in his name is pronounced). Read the section on nomenclature here and click on some of the links about Anglic and Scots (Yes, I realize I'm quoting Wikipedia, but there is ...


5

I've done a little bit of research about this "shtook" slung term and it looks like the Yiddish origin cannot be ruled out so easily. To sum it up, I've come to the conclusion that the most probable origin is an abbreviation of the phrase shtuck dreck which means piece of crap and it comes from the Jewish community. Here is some supporting evidence. 1. ...


4

I appreciate the answers here which seek a grammatically logical way to spell the word. From an aesthetic point of view, however, cazh does not strike me as the best route. I think it destroys the casual tone sought by the author. Examine other similar spoken truncations in colloquial speech: bro for brother sis for sister dif for difference gen for ...


4

Perhaps you mean the Yiddish term shtuk: in shtuk/shtook/stook/schtuk in trouble. A very widespread expression which moved from a restricted demi-monde and theatrical usage to common currency in the mid-1960s, partly through its use in the entertainment media. Shtuk in its various spellings is Yiddish for difficulties. ‘In shtuk’ often refers to ...


4

The pattern is very simple. The basic British rule (as I understand it) is the orthographic "long u" alters the pronunciation of four consonants that preceed it. These consonants are /t d s z/, which become /ch j sh zh/. Almost invariably. That's the whole rule for the man in the street who pronounces "Tuesday" as "Chewsday". For the speakers who do not ...


4

You're absolutely right, there is a subtle sh sound. I've just tried it myself and I can detect different positions of my mouth and tongue as I say str words, compared to words beginning simply with s (excluding sugar and sure of course) and other s and consonant clusters. I have no knowledge as to whether this is more marked in different regions, but I ...


4

Palatalisation is less a matter of rudeness or incorrectness, and more a matter of carefulness and social identity — in terms of social class and geographical location. And it matters which word we are talking about too. As you can see, this is not a straightforward issue. PALATALISATION NORMAL. If you consider a word like literature, most ...


3

I don't see why it would be spelt any differently to cas. Anything else will, IMO, simply confuse the reader. Some people also pronounce casual as /kazjʊəl/. Mimicking the IPA would give you: caz caʒ cazh


3

I'm not a linguistics major, but I can tell you that the two are not pronounced the same. In layman's terms, zh is a voiced version of sh. The sh sound is normally made without engaging the vocal cords. If you add vocal sound to it, it will become zh. In the j sound, you get ready to make the zh sound, but instead of leaving your tongue in that position, ...


3

Here's what some dictionaries have. Green's Dictionary of Slang (Green 2011) cas (cazh, casj) The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (Dalzell and Victor 2006) caj The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (Barber 2004): cazh


2

Poking around Google hits for "shtook" I found "schtuck" which is just "stuck" with a goofy pronunciation. Haha, now you're schtuck. "Shtook" and its many variants seem common enough to credit but my childhood was probably using "stuck".



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible