5

I've noticed that this phenomenon is common in fast speech. I have searched and searched on the internet for the official name for this, but I cannot seem to find it. Here are some examples:

  • With this (pronounced withis).
  • Watch Changes (pronounced Watchanges).

These seem to me to be almost like portmanteaus, but they're not. Is this just lazy speech? Does anybody know what this phenomenon is called; I'm just curious.

Thank You.

  • 7
    "Degemination". – Greg Lee Jul 24 '17 at 18:28
  • 1
    geminate. Degemination is then the opposite as @King_Kangaroo stated. – MikeJRamsey56 Jul 24 '17 at 20:07
  • @MikeJRamsey56: Your own link states that gemination is doubling. OP's focus is on omitting the repeated sound, therefore "undoubling". – Flater Jul 25 '17 at 10:29
  • 3
    I haven't ever encountered anyone who would combine "watch" and "changes" in that way. It may sound difficult, but it's always a distinct "ch ch." – Rory Alsop Jul 25 '17 at 13:29
  • @Flater See for example Standard Definition of 'Degemination' and 'Gemination'. – MikeJRamsey56 Jul 25 '17 at 14:13
  • @MikeJRamsey56: Again from the link you supplied: "there are no geminates in the language since these double consonants are pronounced as a single consonant" [No geminates] because [no separate pronunciation]. Therefore, a geminate means that you pronounce both instances of the sound. Also from your link: "A word like ''illustre'' (illustrious) is normaly prononced with a single /l/, but to give it emphasis it can be pronounced with a geminate /ll/." Again, geminate = double. – Flater Jul 25 '17 at 14:25
  • 1
    @MikeJRamsey56: From the same link, it is even explained more explicitly: "If gemination is the process of creating geminates, than degemination is just the opposite... It is the simplification of a geminate into a single consonant." Therefore, Greg Lee's argument that the contracted pronunciation is correctly called degemination, not gemination as you've claimed. – Flater Jul 25 '17 at 14:29
  • @RoryAlsop , I apologize for using such a poor example. I don't of anybody whom would combine those specific words together either; it was intended to serve purely as an example. –  Jul 26 '17 at 01:36
  • This is very frequent in other languages, one of which is Sanskrit . But in English I never heard or read it.. – Karan Desai Jul 29 '17 at 05:02
  • This connected speech, seems similar to sandhi, see this EL&U answer for more info. – Mari-Lou A Jul 30 '17 at 14:29

1 Answers1

1

I can't imagine any other way to say "With this ring, I thee wed" other than withis. On the other hand, "my watch changes every time I look at it" would definitely include two ch sounds. Trying to think of other cases: Where do we wash shirts? Might be said with one prolonged sh sound. I think ch doesn't work because ch includes two sounds (t-sh) How about "Don't talk so loud"? or "I can't tell." There's only one release of the t sound. Calling it "lazy speech" reveals a misunderstanding about how speech and linguistics works. There's no place for pejorative language in describing how people speak. But if you're deeply interested in language, you might want to learn about the standard use of who/whom in your further comment: "I don't of anybody whom would combine those specific words together either." "Whom" is not just an upscale version of "who." It is objective case, while your sentence calls for subjective case. But I hesitate to go pejorative on you.

Here's a link that shows the various things that naturally happen when English is spoken: The particular example of linking that you give seems to be called geminates. https://pronuncian.com/introduction-to-linking/

Evelyn Elwell Uyemura
  • 11
  • 1
    Of course it's lazy speech—like most other sound changes that occur, it is occasioned by the natural and universal laziness of human beings when speaking. Reducing the amount of effort required to produce sounds is a feature of all human speech. There's nothing pejorative about it; that's just how humans work. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jul 29 '17 at 21:06
  • @JanusBahsJacquet - Or maybe it’s efficient speech... – Jim Jul 29 '17 at 21:20
  • @Jim When it comes to sound change, those are two sides of the same coin. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jul 29 '17 at 21:22
  • @JanusBahsJacquet - Yes, my point exactly. – Jim Jul 29 '17 at 21:24
  • The word "lazy" is inherently pejorative. The questioner asks what this phenomenon is, or is it "just lazy,' implying that maybe it's not "a real thing," but just somehow defective. Instead it is, as you indicate, how languages work. – Evelyn Elwell Uyemura Jul 31 '17 at 05:54