Assimilation and elision
Here's a piece from an underground, um, yeah, let's call it so, an underground English language course:
_Some words would only be affected by assimilation, and some words would only be affected elision. But many words would be affected both by assimilation and by elision. And when a word is affected by assimilation as well as elision, its shape changes not just a little, but considerably.
Thus, for example, in "went back", the 't' gets elided, and the sequence becomes "wen' back". Now the sound 'n' occurs before the sound 'b'. So the 'n' readily assimilates to 'm'. And the sequence then becomes "wem' back". Similarly, the word group "He isn't coming" becomes "He isn' coming" through the elision of 't', and then becomes "He isng' coming" through the assimilation of 'n'. In the same way, the word "handbag" becomes "han'bag" through the elision of 'd', and then "ham'bag" through the assimilation of 'n'.
Here's another example: The word "remember" in "I can't remember where it is" becomes "rememb" by the elision of 'er' before the word 'where'. Then "rememb" becomes "remem’ " by the elision of 'b' between 'm' and 'w'. And in fast speech, "remem" becomes "remm", especially if you’re speaking casually. Thus, the word group "I can't remember where it is" becomes "I can’t remm' where it is" in fast casual speech._
Comments?
Wonderful Winter,
Achab
I'm strictly an amateur, so I don't know anything about assimilation or elision, but I do know I say "wem' back" (it actually sounds more like "wemp back") and "isng' coming." However, I disagree with the last example. I say "remember where"... or, sometimes, "remembuh where."
I really don't know what you mean by an 'underground language course'.
I have looked up some of the words that you have used.
Language shift or language assimilation
The process whereby a community of speakers of one language becomes bilingual in another language, and gradually shift allegiance to the second language is called assimilation.
Elision is the omission of one or more sounds (such as a vowel, a consonant, or a whole syllable) in a word or phrase, producing a result that is easier for the speaker to pronounce.
OK
I am familiar with what you are saying. That speakers of a foreign language never completely master the foreign language. That there are always characteristic problems in their speech. When it is an entire community that is learning a foreign language, then the entire community will develop a different form of that language - like 'pidgin English'.
I think what you meant by an 'underground language course' is a course in English slang.
I would advise you against learning too much slang.
Different dialects and accents are a problem in English. One way round this problem is to concentrate on 'International English'. If you are trying to fit in to a particular community, then it makes sense to try to learn the particular language of that community.
In Aberdeen, there used to be an English course on how to speak English in the Torry district of Aberdeen. Very useful if you want to live in Torry and your horizons do not extend any further.
I would suggest your time would be better spent learning the difference between 'advice and advise'. Surely, you must have some old grammar books to keep you occupied?
Robin Michael,
He asked about assimilation and elision, he didn't ask whether or not he should learn slang... Nor did he ask about the kind of assimilation you think he did, nor did he ask about whether foreigners can master a language, nor did he ask about characteristic problems in their speech, nor did he ask about pidgin English, nor did he ask about international English, nor did he ask about fitting into a community, nor did he ask about English courses in Aberdeen, nor did he ask about old grammar books.
Maybe you should read his post again...
I don't know about all that. It sounds like niggerspeak to me.
Those assimilations and elisions are common.
"I can't remember where it is"
In American English, /r/ dissimulation is common; whenever you two r-controlled syllables, get rid one of them.
remember where > rememb where > remem where > remm where > rem where
I have never heard anyone say, "rem where." Closest thing to shorten that phrase would be, "memb where."
The first two examples are familiar, but the "remember" elision to "remm" I have never heard in native speakers, although I do hear shortening in speech to "member" as noted by Entbark.
As for "hambag", I clearly recall thinking that's exactly what it was called, in my early years before getting into the tedium of learning English spelling. I remember making some silly jokes about it.
To everyone but Robin Michael,
Thank you for your interesting comments. I may post more snippets from the same course in the coming days in order to check its slant and accuracy.
To Robin Michael,
What I mean by "underground English language course" is a not particularly well-known English language course of which I didn't want to disclose the title.
Having said that, I found your "commentary" rather stupid and completely off-topic. I don't really like to see your postings in any thread that I open since they never fail to strike me as nothing more than useless chattering completely unrelated to the ongoing discussion and set to lead such discussion astray. I don't really get amused by seeing my threads soiled by the dirt of which your postings are made. So I gently ask you to not insert any posting of yours in any thread of mine in the future.
Thank you in advance, Robin Michael.
Wonderful Winter,
Achab
Pedro, nobody says "rem where". We are far more likely to chop off the first syllable and say "member where", often with just a hint of the first R in front of the "member" part.
Could it be that the "remm' where" assimilation/elision is chiefly British or a feature of "Commonwealth English"?
The author of the underground course in question is not an American, you know.
With every good wish,
Achab
By the way, in case there's some lingering doubt about it, the phenomena of elision and assimilation we're talking about in this thread relate to casual, "fast" speech, and not to the kind of slow, carefully-parsed speech that you're likely to engage in when you're not being understood and you want to speak more clearly.
Think about talking to a foreigner, for instance. In a situation like that, you may often want to get the words you're pronouncing to stand out almost each by each, rather than in an overall connected fashion. Well, forget about it, that's not what we're discussing over here. The topic of this thread should be related to a context of casual, small talk between native speakers of English.
Here's a further bit from the "underground" course:
_You shouldn't expect English words to sound the same when you
use them in connected speech (in the company of other words)
as when you pronounce them separately (in isolation).
When you use English words in connected speech (in the company
of other words), they tend to undergo phonetic simplification.
There's nothing abnormal in this. And you shouldn't try
to resist this tendency or to prevent the simplification process.
Instead, you should allow the simplification process to take
place.
You should have a clear idea of the types of phonetic changes
that are possible in English, so that the phonetic changes that
you allow to take place would be of the acceptable category, and
not of the unacceptable category._
With my happy January wishes,
Achab