Negative contraction reductions.

Rodd   Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:01 pm GMT
Along with the usually monosyllabic negatives "can't", "won't" and "don't" I also tend to have reduction of certain negative contractions that makes them monosyllabic: I have:

"couldn't" - /kUnt/

"wouldn't" - /wUnt/

"doesn't" - /dUnt/

"didn't" - /dInt/

"wasn't" - /wQnt/

"hasn't" - /hant/

"isn't" - /Int/
Rodd   Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:41 pm GMT
<<Are from Northern or Midlands England?>>

Northern England.
Travis   Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:03 pm GMT
I have two sets of negative contraction reductions, them being (in decreasing order of frequency):

"didn't" : ["dI:n:], ["dI:n:?], ["dI:n:t]
"hadn't" : ["hE{:n:], ["hE{:n:?], ["hE{:n:t]
"couldn't" : ["k_hU:n:], ["k_hU:n:?], ["k_hU:n:t]
"wouldn't" : ["wU:n:], ["wU:n:?], ["wU:n:t]
"shouldn't" : ["S_j}U:n:], ["S_j}U:n:?], ["S_j}U:n:t]

and:

"didn't" : ["dI~::?], ["dI~::n], ["dI~::], ["dI~::t], ["dI~::nt]
"hadn't" : ["hE{~::?], ["hE{~::n], ["hE{~::], ["hE{~::t], ["hE{~::nt]
"couldn't" : ["k_hU~::?], ["k_hU~::n], ["k_hU~::], ["k_hU~::t], ["k_hU~::nt]
"wouldn't" : ["wU~::?], ["wU~::n], ["wU~::], ["wU~::t], ["wU~::nt]
"shouldn't" : ["S_j}U~::?], ["S_j}U~::n], ["S_j}U~::], ["S_j}U~::t], ["S_j}U~::nt]

For the first set the lack of vowel nasalization is actually accurate and not an oversight on my part; the vowels are pronounced as if they were not followed by nasal consonants in the first set.

For the second set the forms ending with [n] or, less frequently, without a final consonant are preferred before vowels, and the forms ending in [?] or [t] primarily appear in other positions. The forms without a final consonant are very informal and unstressed, and may appear before both consonants and vowels.

Note that the first set is the default set, with the forms ending in [n:] being by far the most common in everyday speech here.

Also note that I am not including disyllabic forms of verbs with negative markings here, as the loss of final /t/ or its realization of [?] and the syllabicization of /n/ with the loss of the preceding vowel *or* the lack of realized [n] as such practically applies to all verbs inflected as being negative here.
Jim H.   Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:05 pm GMT
All of those remain bisyllabic for me. However, I do have [?] for [d] and [z] there.

"couldn't" - [kU?n=]

"shouldn't" - [SU?n=]

"doesn't" - [dV?n=]

"didn't" - [dI?n=]

"wasn't" - [wV?n=]

"hasn't" - [h{zn=]

"isn't" - [I?n=]

"hasn't" seems to resist this as otherwise it would merge with "hadn't".
Travis   Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:19 pm GMT
I should note that I view the term "negative contraction" as inaccurate, as such implies that such are simply verbs attached to cliticized versions of "not", but the actual patterning of such forms implies that "-n't" is actually a bound morpheme which alternates with the use of an independent word "not". The reasons to consider "-n't" an inflection are:

1) The distribution of "-n't" is inconsistent with its being a clitic, because its distribution does not match that of the separate word "not" due to "-n't" being moved along with fronted auxiliaries and modals unlike "not".

2) There are negative forms with "-n't" which have phonemic stem changes, specifically "don't" and "won't", which further points at such being an inflection; if such were a clitic only phonetic stem changes should occur in such forms.

3) "-n't" is only found attached to some auxiliary and modal verbs in very many dialects, with there being modal verbs such as "may", "might", "shall", and "need" which do not use "-n't". The matter is that clitics normally bind to host words without regard to said host words' identities, while it is not uncommon to have specific words with incomplete inflectional paradigms in many languages. Consequently, it is easier to justify calling "-n't" and inflection and to say that "may", "might", "shall", and "need" have incomplete paradigms for auxiliary or modal verbs than to consider "-n't" to be a clitic.
Guest   Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:23 pm GMT
Lalonde!
WTF?
Guest   Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:25 pm GMT
:D
Rodd   Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:57 am GMT
<<Does this ever cause confusion with...another word with the same pronunciation?>>

No it doesn't usually.
Mosher   Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:09 am GMT
Along with the usually monosyllabic negatives "can't", "won't" and "don't" I also tend to have reduction of certain negative contractions that makes them monosyllabic: I have:

"couldn't" - /kUnt/

So, do you say things such as "The cunt /kUnt/ fight his way out of a paper bag"?

;-p