Weak forms in British English

Johnny   Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:13 pm GMT
Are there weak forms for these words in British English? In which dialect(s)? (Non rhotic)

Or
Her
Your, You're
There, Their, They're
When
Where

The Longman Dictionary of contemporary English give the weak forms of some of them, so it looks like OR, HER, A, OF, ARE are all pronounced the same when weak, as "uh", and YOU, YOUR, YOU'RE are all "yuh". Weird, isn't it?
Johnny   Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:14 pm GMT
<<The Longman Dictionary of contemporary English give...>>

Gives, damn it.
Inquirer   Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:29 pm GMT
If I may, what is a 'weak form'?
Inquirer   Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:44 pm GMT
Never mind, found my answer on WP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_form_and_strong_form
Lazar   Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:06 am GMT
<<Or
Your, You're>>

Yeah, reduced forms for these - [@], [j@] - definitely exist in British English, and they're listed in dictionaries. I think I read somewhere that many RP speakers lack reduced forms for "your" and "you're", tending to use [jO:] where Americans would use [j@`] for "your" and "you're" - and I think this is borne out by some RP speakers that I've heard -, but the reduced forms are definitely used and attested.

<<There, Their, They're>>

Are there reduced forms for these at all? As far as I know, British people would just say [DE@] in all contexts. I'm from Massachusetts and I pronounce these all as [DE@`], with no reduced form.

<<When>>

Pronouncing it like [w@n] (or [wIn]) in rapid speech? I don't know; it probably occurs.

<<Where>>

Again, I'm not really aware of a reduced form for this. I think they would just say [wE@].

By the way, I keep failing to send my message because I instinctively type "I hate spam" at the end of every post, and now they've changed the question. :)
Lazar   Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:18 am GMT
Oh, and what I said about "your" and "you're" would apply for unstressed "you" too - although [j@] for "you" definitely exists in BrEng, I think many RP speakers might avoid it and use [ju] where Americans would use [j@]. I think [j@] (for "you", "your", "you're") is a feature that wasn't part of traditional RP but may be working its way up from vernacular speech.

And I think the reduced form [@], for "of", is another feature that probably would have been considered unacceptable for traditional RP. Even for me as an AmEng speaker, outside of the sequence "of the" (often [@ D@] in rapid speech), it sounds a bit off (or reverse-affected) for me to pronounce "of" as [@].

Of course a British person could give you a better answer.
Lazar   Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:20 am GMT
Actually, no, I was probably a bit harsh on [@]; I suppose I do use it a bit in vernacular speech. But I perceive it as very informal.
AJC   Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:48 am GMT
With respect to pronouns, I'm not sure if seeing them as "reduced" forms is right. Whereas the ones here may be similar to the stressed forms, there are others that are radically different in their streesed and unstressed versions. That said:

Speaking for my own, North Eastern, dialect:

<<OR, HER, A, OF, ARE >>

[Q] [6] [@] [@] [6]

roughly speaking. The "of" does come across as particularly informal if before a vowel, though I have heard it.

<<Your, You're >>

both as [j6] and so distinct from "you", [j@]

<<There, Their, They're >>

The first has no weak form, the others would be [D6]

<<When, Where >>

No weak form.
Johnny   Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:37 pm GMT
Very interesting. I see there must be lots of variations, as expected.