Can ''schwa'' be a verb?

Al   Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:01 am GMT
On this thread http://www.antimoon.com/forum/posts/7262-3.htm

<<I s'pose I also "schwa" my "i"s.

/stSu:p@d/ i.e. "schoopid" (sometimes /stju:p@d/ i.e. "styoopid") (X-SAMPA)>>

Someone asked:

<<Why the inverted commas around ''schwa''. Is it because you're not sure if you actually pronounce unstressed /I/'s as schwas i.e. ''stupid''., ''cabin'' in that you might just be hearing yourself wrong? In my American accent, I don't schwa those i's.>>

The response was:

<<The inverted commas around "schwa" I put there because the word is a noun not a verb ... or at least outside of this thread it is.>>

Can ''schwa'' also be a verb? Or is it strictly a noun? I'm asking because someone said that it wasn't, but I think that it can be a verb.
Kirk   Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:43 am GMT
<<Can ''schwa'' also be a verb?>>

Why not? I schwa all the time.
Uriel   Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:27 am GMT
That's the beauty of English.
JJM   Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:07 pm GMT
"Can 'schwa' also be a verb? Or is it strictly a noun? I'm asking because someone said that it wasn't, but I think that it can be a verb."

If you use it as a verb, it IS a verb.
Travis   Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:42 pm GMT
It's not just the word "schwa" - one can treat practically any noun in English today as a verb if one wants to. Some might complain that verbing weirds language, but one way or another verbing is definitely here to stay.
Kirk   Sat Oct 08, 2005 9:54 pm GMT
<<If you use it as a verb, it IS a verb.>>

Yup. Exactly.

<<Some might complain that verbing weirds language>>

My counter is always something like verbing awesomes language :)
Uriel   Sat Oct 08, 2005 10:55 pm GMT
I agree -- English is a pretty flexible language in that respect.
Lazar   Sat Oct 08, 2005 10:59 pm GMT
<<My counter is always something like verbing awesomes language :)>>

Haha. ;-)
Guest   Sat Oct 08, 2005 11:22 pm GMT
I prefer "to google" to "to search with Google".
Kirk   Sat Oct 08, 2005 11:33 pm GMT
<<I prefer "to google" to "to search with Google".>>

Who doesn't? ;) I even say "to wikipedia" now. "I'll wikipedia it later."
Lazar   Sat Oct 08, 2005 11:44 pm GMT
<<I even say "to wikipedia" now. "I'll wikipedia it later.">>

Hmm, I've never heard that one before. I think I'll use it in the future though.

But with my New England intrusive R's, it might be "wikipedier it". ;-)
Kirk   Sat Oct 08, 2005 11:56 pm GMT
<<But with my New England intrusive R's, it might be "wikipedier it". ;-)>>

Haha, well there's definitely a new twist on things!
SpaceFlight   Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:10 am GMT
<<But with my New England intrusive R's, it might be "wikipedier it". ;-)>>

Interesting. I never knew that there were rhotic accents that had the intrusive ''r''. I thought that only nonrhotic accents ever had it. Well, so in New England I guess you can hear rhotic speakers with the intrusive ''r' then, right?
Lazar   Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:26 am GMT
<<Interesting. I never knew that there were rhotic accents that had the intrusive ''r''. I thought that only nonrhotic accents ever had it. Well, so in New England I guess you can hear rhotic speakers with the intrusive ''r' then, right?>>

The intrusive R is generally a feature of non-rhotic accents. It seems to have developed in New England as a result of the non-rhoticity here, but nowadays it's common among non-rhotic and rhotic New Englanders.