Afrikaans is a language which is descended from the Boers, the Dutch settlers of the south of Africa. Though similar to Dutch, it is sufficiently different to be classified as a separate language. The similarity between the two languages can be seen in the numbers from one to ten. Here they are:
Dutch Afrikaans
een een
twee twee
drie drie
vier vier
vijf vyf
zes ses
zeven sewe
acht agt
negen nege
tien tien
The words for "one", "two", "three", "four" and "ten" are identical. The others are very similar and show differences in the spelling systems of both languages.
The Dutch diphthong "ij" as "ijs" (ice) corresponds to the Afrikaans "y". The Afrikaans language does not have a "z", thus the word for "six" starts with an "s".
The lack of a "z" in Afrikaans is natural. If a language lacks a consonant, it if far more likely to lack a voiced one instead of a voiceless one. The reason is that voiced consonants require greater articulatory effort. As a result, they are more marked.
The Afrikaans word for "seven" does not have a word-final nasal. However, many Dutch speakers do not pronounce the nasal, either. In fact, word-final "n" is often not pronounced in Dutch.
The word for "eight" varies but the "g" and the "ch" have the same sound in Dutch and Afrikaans. This word is pronounced with the final sound in the name "Bach".
The word for "nine" is almost identical, but Afrikaans does not have a word-final "n". Many Dutch, however, also pronounce this word without a final nasal.
The pronunciation of Dutch and Afrikaans is also a little different. The word "een" has a diphthong in the pronunciation of many Dutch speakers. In Afrikaans speakers, this vowel is a monophthong.
The word "twee" is pronounced with a labiovelar glide in Afrikaans and tends to have a word-final schwa after the monophthong. In Belgium, the labiovelar glide is also common, but in Dutch speakers the labiodental approximant is common. Also, many Dutch speakers use a diphthong.
In Afrikaans, "drie" is always pronounced with an alveolar trill. In Dutch, however, the "r" has many varieties such as the uvular trill.
The word for "five" has a more cardinal diphthong in Afrikaans than in Dutch. In Dutch, the first component of the diphthong is lower and more fronted than in Afrikaans.
The word "sewe" has palatalization. A palatal glide is produced before the first vowel. This is not the case in Dutch. However, the "w" here is not a labiovelar glide but rather a labiodental approximant.
The word "nege" also has palatalization. As in the word "sewe", a palatal glide is produced before the first vowel.
The Dutch and Afrikaans languages are similar but clearly they also have a number of differences. One is that the Afrikaans language lacks a voiced alveolar fricative as in the Dutch word "zes". By looking at the numbers from one to ten, one can see important differences between the two languages.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Analysis of the French Word for "white"
The word "white" has four forms in French. They are "blanc", "blanche", "blancs" and "blanches". Here are four phrases to illustrate these four forms:
une maison blanche (a white house)
les maisons blanches (the white houses)
un livre blanc (a white book)
les livres blancs (the white books)
With feminine nouns, the forms "blanche" and "blanches" are used while with masculine nouns the forms "blanc" and "blancs" are used. This is different from English which has the invariable word "white". In English, adjectives are not marked for gender nor number.
In many cases, the French feminine and masculines forms of an adjective are pronounced the same as in "bleu" and "bleue" (blue). In other cases, the final letter of the masculine form is silent while with the feminine the letter "e" is added and the consonant is then pronounced. (The final "e" can be pronounced as a schwa but is often silent). This is illustrated with "vert" and verte" (green).
With "blanc" and "blanche", however, rather than a feminine form in which the final sound is a velar plosive, the final sound is an alveopalatal fricative. How can we explain this?
It is possible that at one time the word "blanche" was pronounced similarly to the English word "blank". It is also likely the case that the word final "e" was pronounced. Since this "e" is a front vowel, it is plausible that the velar stop developed an advanced articulation. Also possible is that the hard "c" sound became the soft "c" sound in words such as "centre" and "cigar". If the pronunciation of the word "blanche" was once "blanke" which developed to "blanse", a phonological explanation can account for the change to "blanche". The "e" is a mid front vowel which can trigger palatalization. The high front vowel "i" is another which can trigger this palatalization process. It would be less likely to occur with a back vowel such as "u". In fact, European linguists often refer to front vowels as palatal and back vowels as velar.
A very literary account for the different pronunciations of "blanc" and "blanche" was given to me by a professor who taught me phonology as an undergraduate student. His explanation was so original and imaginative that I remember it to this day.
He suggested that we think of a planet in the sky. We know that the planet exists but on cloudy days we cannot see it. This relates to the form "blanc". We can see the word-final "c" but we do not pronounce it. Its silence is similar to the concept of an invisible planet. With the word "blanche", however, the sky is clear and the planet is fully visible. As a result, the word-final "c" of the word "blanche" is pronounced. It is initially pronounced as a velar plosive but becomes an alveopalatal fricative because the word-final vowel triggers palatalization. The pronunciation of the vowel relates to the concept of a visible planet.
This explanation may not exist in any textbook and may fail to impress many linguists, but I find it very descriptive and satisfying. It underlines that linguistics does not need to be a science which excludes art. On the other hand, it can be beautiful and creative. This is the reason I view linguistics as a combination of both science and art and not merely one to the exclusion of the other.
une maison blanche (a white house)
les maisons blanches (the white houses)
un livre blanc (a white book)
les livres blancs (the white books)
With feminine nouns, the forms "blanche" and "blanches" are used while with masculine nouns the forms "blanc" and "blancs" are used. This is different from English which has the invariable word "white". In English, adjectives are not marked for gender nor number.
In many cases, the French feminine and masculines forms of an adjective are pronounced the same as in "bleu" and "bleue" (blue). In other cases, the final letter of the masculine form is silent while with the feminine the letter "e" is added and the consonant is then pronounced. (The final "e" can be pronounced as a schwa but is often silent). This is illustrated with "vert" and verte" (green).
With "blanc" and "blanche", however, rather than a feminine form in which the final sound is a velar plosive, the final sound is an alveopalatal fricative. How can we explain this?
It is possible that at one time the word "blanche" was pronounced similarly to the English word "blank". It is also likely the case that the word final "e" was pronounced. Since this "e" is a front vowel, it is plausible that the velar stop developed an advanced articulation. Also possible is that the hard "c" sound became the soft "c" sound in words such as "centre" and "cigar". If the pronunciation of the word "blanche" was once "blanke" which developed to "blanse", a phonological explanation can account for the change to "blanche". The "e" is a mid front vowel which can trigger palatalization. The high front vowel "i" is another which can trigger this palatalization process. It would be less likely to occur with a back vowel such as "u". In fact, European linguists often refer to front vowels as palatal and back vowels as velar.
A very literary account for the different pronunciations of "blanc" and "blanche" was given to me by a professor who taught me phonology as an undergraduate student. His explanation was so original and imaginative that I remember it to this day.
He suggested that we think of a planet in the sky. We know that the planet exists but on cloudy days we cannot see it. This relates to the form "blanc". We can see the word-final "c" but we do not pronounce it. Its silence is similar to the concept of an invisible planet. With the word "blanche", however, the sky is clear and the planet is fully visible. As a result, the word-final "c" of the word "blanche" is pronounced. It is initially pronounced as a velar plosive but becomes an alveopalatal fricative because the word-final vowel triggers palatalization. The pronunciation of the vowel relates to the concept of a visible planet.
This explanation may not exist in any textbook and may fail to impress many linguists, but I find it very descriptive and satisfying. It underlines that linguistics does not need to be a science which excludes art. On the other hand, it can be beautiful and creative. This is the reason I view linguistics as a combination of both science and art and not merely one to the exclusion of the other.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
English Plural Marker
What is the underlying form of the English plural marker? The plural 's' has three variants: the /s/ in 'cats', the /z/ in 'dogs' and 'pies' and the /Iz/ in 'boxes'. These variants occur in specific environments. The /s/ occurs after voiceless consonants, the /z/ after voiced consonants and vowels, and the /Iz/ variant after consonants and affricates which have greater acoustic noise and turbulence than other consonants. If we take the case of the words 'judges', 'matches', 'wishes' and 'races', we have examples of affricates in the first two words and strident fricatives in the last two.
Many textbooks of linguistics argue that the underlying form of the plural marker in English is /z/. They make this claim on the basis of wider distribution. The voiced alveolar fricative is present not only in /z/ but also in /Iz/. However, is this really correct? First of all, it is debatable as to whether or not we should even claim that there is an underlying form. Do we want to say that at one time in the historical development of English there was only one form and from that form other forms developed? A counterclaim is that each form is contextually dependent and as a result the notion of wider distribution is invalid.
However, if we must choose an underlying form, we can also present many arguments in favour of the allomorph /s/. The first is that in forms such as 'snows' and 'plays', it is true that either a voiceless or voiced alveolar fricative can occur. We have words such as place' and 'race' to prove this. Nevertheless, because the word-final vowel is voiced, we can argue that a voiced fricative could be the result of assimilation. Perhaps the underlying form was once voiceless and later became voiced as the result of an assimilation process.
Other arguments in favour of /s/ as underlying are orthography. If the plural marker had originally been pronounced as a voiced fricative, would this not be reflected in the orthography? Markedness theory also favours /s/. It is well-known that voiceless fricatives are less marked than marked ones and that in word-final position many languages only have voiceless fricatives such as German and Dutch. English, though, is a Germanic language with many voiced fricatives in word-final position as in 'knives', 'boys' and 'dogs'.
Other languages such as Spanish and German have a voiceless fricative in the plural: i.e., Spanish has 'gatos' (cats) and German has Autos (cars). This also provides evidence to suggest that the underlying plura marker could be /s/.
A problem for the claim that the underlying marker is /s/, though, is forms such as 'knives' and 'lives'. The Swedish, Norwegian and Danish words 'kniv' and 'liv' indicate that 'knive' and 'live' may be underlying forms in which the word-final consonant devoiced. If this is the case, /z/ appears to be underlying. But it is also possible that 'lives' and 'knives' are the result of a progressive voicing assimilation, (live + s > live + z; knife + s > knife + z), and the devoicing that resulted in 'life' and 'knife' occurred at a different stage in the development of the English language. This goes against the claim of the Neogrammarians that sound change is always regular, but unfortunately, despite the wishes of many linguists, it does not appear that language is always so simple.
Many linguists claim that the underlying plural allomorph in English is /z/. However, it is also possible to claim that all the allomorphs are contextually dependent and thus occurred simultaneously in their own specific environments. If an underlying form must be chosen, it is also possible to claim that this underlying allomorph should be /s/ and not /z/.
Many textbooks of linguistics argue that the underlying form of the plural marker in English is /z/. They make this claim on the basis of wider distribution. The voiced alveolar fricative is present not only in /z/ but also in /Iz/. However, is this really correct? First of all, it is debatable as to whether or not we should even claim that there is an underlying form. Do we want to say that at one time in the historical development of English there was only one form and from that form other forms developed? A counterclaim is that each form is contextually dependent and as a result the notion of wider distribution is invalid.
However, if we must choose an underlying form, we can also present many arguments in favour of the allomorph /s/. The first is that in forms such as 'snows' and 'plays', it is true that either a voiceless or voiced alveolar fricative can occur. We have words such as place' and 'race' to prove this. Nevertheless, because the word-final vowel is voiced, we can argue that a voiced fricative could be the result of assimilation. Perhaps the underlying form was once voiceless and later became voiced as the result of an assimilation process.
Other arguments in favour of /s/ as underlying are orthography. If the plural marker had originally been pronounced as a voiced fricative, would this not be reflected in the orthography? Markedness theory also favours /s/. It is well-known that voiceless fricatives are less marked than marked ones and that in word-final position many languages only have voiceless fricatives such as German and Dutch. English, though, is a Germanic language with many voiced fricatives in word-final position as in 'knives', 'boys' and 'dogs'.
Other languages such as Spanish and German have a voiceless fricative in the plural: i.e., Spanish has 'gatos' (cats) and German has Autos (cars). This also provides evidence to suggest that the underlying plura marker could be /s/.
A problem for the claim that the underlying marker is /s/, though, is forms such as 'knives' and 'lives'. The Swedish, Norwegian and Danish words 'kniv' and 'liv' indicate that 'knive' and 'live' may be underlying forms in which the word-final consonant devoiced. If this is the case, /z/ appears to be underlying. But it is also possible that 'lives' and 'knives' are the result of a progressive voicing assimilation, (live + s > live + z; knife + s > knife + z), and the devoicing that resulted in 'life' and 'knife' occurred at a different stage in the development of the English language. This goes against the claim of the Neogrammarians that sound change is always regular, but unfortunately, despite the wishes of many linguists, it does not appear that language is always so simple.
Many linguists claim that the underlying plural allomorph in English is /z/. However, it is also possible to claim that all the allomorphs are contextually dependent and thus occurred simultaneously in their own specific environments. If an underlying form must be chosen, it is also possible to claim that this underlying allomorph should be /s/ and not /z/.
Monday, August 25, 2008
A comparison of the vocabulary of English and Swedish
English and Swedish are related languages. They are both classified as members of the Germanic language family. The similarity between them is reflected in many words: for example, the Swedish words "hus", "nu", "liv", "vi", "oss", "tre", "se", "nummer", "mus" and "fisk" mean "house", "now", "life", "we", "us", "three", "see", "number", "mouse" and "fish".
In certain cases, Swedish words do not appear so similar to English ones but a semantic relationship clearly exists. As a result of this semantic relationship, the connection between the two words can be clearly seen.
For example, the Swedish word "kvinna" means woman. The two words may not appear similar but the word "kvinna" is very similar to the English word "queen" and one of the semantic properties of the word "queen" is +female.
The Swedish "bord" means table. It is very similar to the English word "board". The Swedish word for "chair" is stol which is similar to the English word "stool".
The word "mörk" means dark. It is very similar to the English word "murky" as in murky water. Murky water is difficult to see through because it is dark. Again the semantic relationship is clear.
The Swedish word "dyr" means expensive. It is related to the English word "dear" which can mean valued and treasured. Though it is now considered rather archaic, the word "dear" can also be used to mean expensive as in "a dear necklace".
The Swedish word for Christmas is "jul". It is related to the English word "yule" and is in fact pronounced similarly because the Swedish "j" corresponds to the English "y".
The Swedish word "kuvert" may appear unrelated to the word "envelope" but if one thinks of the word "cover", that is exactly what an envelope does. It covers the letter that goes inside it.
Another example is the Swedish word "gul". It means yellow and may appear unrelated. However, the English word "gold" is similar. When the words "gul" and "gold" are compared, the similarity between these two words is evident.
The English and Swedish languages have a number of words which are related to one another. A number of words may appear unrelated to one another upon first glance. However, when viewed from a semantic perspective, the similarity in meaning often becomes evident.
In certain cases, Swedish words do not appear so similar to English ones but a semantic relationship clearly exists. As a result of this semantic relationship, the connection between the two words can be clearly seen.
For example, the Swedish word "kvinna" means woman. The two words may not appear similar but the word "kvinna" is very similar to the English word "queen" and one of the semantic properties of the word "queen" is +female.
The Swedish "bord" means table. It is very similar to the English word "board". The Swedish word for "chair" is stol which is similar to the English word "stool".
The word "mörk" means dark. It is very similar to the English word "murky" as in murky water. Murky water is difficult to see through because it is dark. Again the semantic relationship is clear.
The Swedish word "dyr" means expensive. It is related to the English word "dear" which can mean valued and treasured. Though it is now considered rather archaic, the word "dear" can also be used to mean expensive as in "a dear necklace".
The Swedish word for Christmas is "jul". It is related to the English word "yule" and is in fact pronounced similarly because the Swedish "j" corresponds to the English "y".
The Swedish word "kuvert" may appear unrelated to the word "envelope" but if one thinks of the word "cover", that is exactly what an envelope does. It covers the letter that goes inside it.
Another example is the Swedish word "gul". It means yellow and may appear unrelated. However, the English word "gold" is similar. When the words "gul" and "gold" are compared, the similarity between these two words is evident.
The English and Swedish languages have a number of words which are related to one another. A number of words may appear unrelated to one another upon first glance. However, when viewed from a semantic perspective, the similarity in meaning often becomes evident.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Favourite Finnish Words
The Finnish language is a beautiful language which is very different from most European languages. When I lived in Finland from 2003-2004, I had the opportunity to study this fascinating language. Though it is classified in the same language family as Hungarian (Uralic language family), the similarities between them are not as great as one might expect.
I decided to make a list of my ten favourite Finnish words. These are words that I consider among the most beautiful in the language. Because my knowledge of Finnish is rather limited, though, this list is far from perfect. Nevertheless, here it is. I provide the English translation next to the Finnish word.
1) vesi (water)
2) sininen (blue)
3) taivas (sky)
4) lumi (snow)
5) valkoinen (white)
6) lintu (bird)
7) aurinko (sun)
8) maailma (world)
9) kiitos (thank you)
10) rakkaus (love)
The word "maailma" consists of the word maa (land) and the word ilma (air). The combination of the two words creates the word "world". Though Finnish is a very challenging language to learn, I'm very grateful that I had the chance to study this beautiful language in the city of Jyväskylä, Finland.
I decided to make a list of my ten favourite Finnish words. These are words that I consider among the most beautiful in the language. Because my knowledge of Finnish is rather limited, though, this list is far from perfect. Nevertheless, here it is. I provide the English translation next to the Finnish word.
1) vesi (water)
2) sininen (blue)
3) taivas (sky)
4) lumi (snow)
5) valkoinen (white)
6) lintu (bird)
7) aurinko (sun)
8) maailma (world)
9) kiitos (thank you)
10) rakkaus (love)
The word "maailma" consists of the word maa (land) and the word ilma (air). The combination of the two words creates the word "world". Though Finnish is a very challenging language to learn, I'm very grateful that I had the chance to study this beautiful language in the city of Jyväskylä, Finland.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Adjectives Formed From Proper Names
A number of people have become so famous that their last names have adjectival forms. However, the suffix used to transform proper names into adjectives is irregular in English. A number of suffixes can be used.
The great Armenian chessplayer Tigran Petrosian, a former world champion who was a master of prophylaxis, the art of preventing threats, and who was quick to take advantage of his opponents' mistakes, has given us the word "Petrosianesque" as in "That was a Petrosianesque manoeuvre". Other former world champions of chess whose names have adjectival forms are Anatoly Karpov and Gary Kasparov- the adjectives are "Karpovian" and "Kasparovian". The suffix in Petrosianesque is rather unusual but it does occur in "Kafkaesque", the adjective formed from the name of Franz Kafka. However, the suffix attached to Karpov and Kasparov is rather productive.
This suffix occurs with many other names such as "Chomskian" for Noam Chomsky (note the change of the "y" to an "i"), "Darwinian" for Charles Darwin, "Newtonian" for Sir Isaac Newton, "Orwellian" for George Orwell, "Chaucerian" for Geoffrey Chaucer, "Saussurean" for Ferdinand de Saussure, "Shakespearean" for William Shakespeare, "Mozartian" for Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, "Bachian" for Johann Sebastian Bach and "Beethovian" for Ludvig van Beethoven.
The suffix -ist in used in the words "Marxist", "Leninist" and "Calvinist", adjectives formed from Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and John Calvin. This is a very productive suffix which also occurs in words such as "typist", "artist", "pianist" and "scientist". These words, however, are all nouns rather than adjectives.
In the word "Lutheran" formed from Martin Luther, the suffix is -an rather than the far more common -ian. In "Thatcherite" formed from Margaret Thatcher, the suffix is -ite, a suffix which is relatively rare. It is important to add that these words can also funtion as nouns. It is clear that these words are nouns in the following sentences: "She is a Lutheran"; "He is a Thatcherite".
The suffix -ic occurs in "Socratic", formed from the name of the famous Greek philosopher Socrates. It also occurs in "Napoleonic" for Napoleon de Bonaparte. An example of the use of "Napoleonic" is the phrase "Napoleonic code".
In English, a number of suffixes can be used to form words from proper names. The most common one by far, though, clearly appears to be the suffix -ian.
The great Armenian chessplayer Tigran Petrosian, a former world champion who was a master of prophylaxis, the art of preventing threats, and who was quick to take advantage of his opponents' mistakes, has given us the word "Petrosianesque" as in "That was a Petrosianesque manoeuvre". Other former world champions of chess whose names have adjectival forms are Anatoly Karpov and Gary Kasparov- the adjectives are "Karpovian" and "Kasparovian". The suffix in Petrosianesque is rather unusual but it does occur in "Kafkaesque", the adjective formed from the name of Franz Kafka. However, the suffix attached to Karpov and Kasparov is rather productive.
This suffix occurs with many other names such as "Chomskian" for Noam Chomsky (note the change of the "y" to an "i"), "Darwinian" for Charles Darwin, "Newtonian" for Sir Isaac Newton, "Orwellian" for George Orwell, "Chaucerian" for Geoffrey Chaucer, "Saussurean" for Ferdinand de Saussure, "Shakespearean" for William Shakespeare, "Mozartian" for Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, "Bachian" for Johann Sebastian Bach and "Beethovian" for Ludvig van Beethoven.
The suffix -ist in used in the words "Marxist", "Leninist" and "Calvinist", adjectives formed from Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and John Calvin. This is a very productive suffix which also occurs in words such as "typist", "artist", "pianist" and "scientist". These words, however, are all nouns rather than adjectives.
In the word "Lutheran" formed from Martin Luther, the suffix is -an rather than the far more common -ian. In "Thatcherite" formed from Margaret Thatcher, the suffix is -ite, a suffix which is relatively rare. It is important to add that these words can also funtion as nouns. It is clear that these words are nouns in the following sentences: "She is a Lutheran"; "He is a Thatcherite".
The suffix -ic occurs in "Socratic", formed from the name of the famous Greek philosopher Socrates. It also occurs in "Napoleonic" for Napoleon de Bonaparte. An example of the use of "Napoleonic" is the phrase "Napoleonic code".
In English, a number of suffixes can be used to form words from proper names. The most common one by far, though, clearly appears to be the suffix -ian.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Canadian Spelling of English
When people think of English spelling, they tend to think of British and American spellings. Canadians, however, tend to use a combination of both. This is certainly true in my case. When I was learning to spell in elementary school, my teachers said that we could use either the American or the British spelling of a word, but we had to be consistent.
With words that end in either -or or -our, I use the British spelling. With younger Canadians, though, it appears that American spellings are becoming increasingly popular. Examples of such words include "neighbour", "favourite", "honour", "labour", "colour", "savour", "flavour" and "harbour". With words that end in either -er or -re, I also use the British variant- i.e., "centre", "metre", "theatre", "litre" and "fibre".
I use the British spellings "catalogue" and "dialogue" rather than the American "catalog" and "dialog" and "pyjamas" instead of "pajamas". I double the "l" in words such as "traveller", "cancelled" and "dialling" and use a single "l" in "skilful" and "wilful".
I also use the spellings "grey", "manoeuvre", "judgement", "axe" and "cheque"rather than "gray", "maneuver", "judgment", "ax" and "check". Note that Americans also use the spelling "grey" in the word "greyhound". I use the spelling "practise" for the verb ("practice" for the noun) rather than the American spelling "practice" and I use the spellings "licence" and "defence" rather than "license" and "defense".
All these examples may give the impression that I use British spellings exclusively, but this is far from the case. I use the spellings "realize", "organize" and "civilization" rather than the spellings "realise", "organise" and "civilisation" which are often used in British spelling. British English, however, also allows the spellings used in American English.
I also use the American spellings "mom", "program", "kilogram", "tire" (a car tire), "buses", "focusing" and "curb" rather than "mum", "programme", "kilogramme", "tyre", "busses", "focussing" and "kerb". The spellings "kilogramme","tyre" and "kerb" are very unusual in Canada.
Though I use the American spelling "mom", I use the British pronunciation of this word. For me, the word "mom" rhymes with "come" and not with "palm" as is the case in American English. This example serves to illustrate that Canadian English is often a variety of English that reflects both British and American influences.
With words that end in either -or or -our, I use the British spelling. With younger Canadians, though, it appears that American spellings are becoming increasingly popular. Examples of such words include "neighbour", "favourite", "honour", "labour", "colour", "savour", "flavour" and "harbour". With words that end in either -er or -re, I also use the British variant- i.e., "centre", "metre", "theatre", "litre" and "fibre".
I use the British spellings "catalogue" and "dialogue" rather than the American "catalog" and "dialog" and "pyjamas" instead of "pajamas". I double the "l" in words such as "traveller", "cancelled" and "dialling" and use a single "l" in "skilful" and "wilful".
I also use the spellings "grey", "manoeuvre", "judgement", "axe" and "cheque"rather than "gray", "maneuver", "judgment", "ax" and "check". Note that Americans also use the spelling "grey" in the word "greyhound". I use the spelling "practise" for the verb ("practice" for the noun) rather than the American spelling "practice" and I use the spellings "licence" and "defence" rather than "license" and "defense".
All these examples may give the impression that I use British spellings exclusively, but this is far from the case. I use the spellings "realize", "organize" and "civilization" rather than the spellings "realise", "organise" and "civilisation" which are often used in British spelling. British English, however, also allows the spellings used in American English.
I also use the American spellings "mom", "program", "kilogram", "tire" (a car tire), "buses", "focusing" and "curb" rather than "mum", "programme", "kilogramme", "tyre", "busses", "focussing" and "kerb". The spellings "kilogramme","tyre" and "kerb" are very unusual in Canada.
Though I use the American spelling "mom", I use the British pronunciation of this word. For me, the word "mom" rhymes with "come" and not with "palm" as is the case in American English. This example serves to illustrate that Canadian English is often a variety of English that reflects both British and American influences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
The opera Turandot features an Asian princess who many men wish to marry. However, if they wish to do so, they must answer three riddles c...
-
Trisyllabic laxing is a process in English which affects tense vowels and diphthongs. They become lax in word formation when followed by two...
-
Cebuano, one of the languages spoken in the Phillipines, has infixation. This is a morphological process in which a bound morpheme attaches ...