A puzzling apostrophe.
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Raymond S. Wise - 16 Jan 2004 09:14 GMT The word "wanna" is one of those nonstandard terms (like "ain't") which has a standard spelling. It's an entry in a number of online dictionaries, although surprisingly not in either the Merriam-Webster online dictionary at www.m-w.com or the 11th Collegiate. In yesterday's *St. Paul (Minnesota) Pioneer Press,* on page A22, appeared a full-page ad for Rainbow Foods, a supermarket chain. An anthropomorphized pear was speaking to an anthropomorphized carrot, saying "Wanna' get fresh?"
So what's the deal with the apostrophe?
 Signature Raymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Django Cat - 16 Jan 2004 13:26 GMT > The word "wanna" is one of those nonstandard terms (like "ain't") which > has [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So what's the deal with the apostrophe? Sounds like a heroic example of 'greengrocer's bastard apostrophe' (*best carrot's sold here).
It's comforting to know 'wanna' isn't in MW.
DCC
Raymond S. Wise - 16 Jan 2004 14:44 GMT > > The word "wanna" is one of those nonstandard terms (like "ain't") which > > has [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > DCC I don't find it comforting, I find it disturbing. They don't have "wanna," but they have "wanna-be" in the online dictionary at www.m-w.com and "wannabe," with a secondary variant "wannabee," in the 11th Collegiate (no "wanna-be). "Wanna," like "gonna," is a nonstandard usage with a standard spelling. The word "gonna" isn't in the Merriam-Webster dictionaries either. Both "wanna" and "gonna" appear regularly in print, where they are used when representing informal language and nonstandard speech. They should be in every general dictionary--including "college" dictionaries--and in large bilingual dictionaries: The English section of my *Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary* has both.
 Signature Raymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Harvey Van Sickle - 16 Jan 2004 14:52 GMT On 16 Jan 2004, Raymond S. Wise wrote
>> It's comforting to know 'wanna' isn't in MW.
> I don't find it comforting, I find it disturbing. They don't have > "wanna," but they have "wanna-be" in the online dictionary at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > dictionaries--and in large bilingual dictionaries: The English > section of my *Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary* has both. Collins has both, as well. Interestingly, they classify "wanna" as a representation of dialect, but gonna" as slang.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years; Southern England for the past 21 years. (for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
Raymond S. Wise - 16 Jan 2004 15:47 GMT > On 16 Jan 2004, Raymond S. Wise wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Collins has both, as well. Interestingly, they classify "wanna" as a > representation of dialect, but gonna" as slang. It looks like they've both been around for awhile: The *Encarta World English Dictionary,* North American Edition, dates "wanna" to the late 19th century. It dates "gonna" to the early 20th century.
 Signature Raymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
CyberCypher - 16 Jan 2004 14:35 GMT "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote on 16 Jan 2004:
> The word "wanna" is one of those nonstandard terms (like "ain't") > which has a standard spelling. It's an entry in a number of online [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So what's the deal with the apostrophe? Wel'l, if'n I had'da put in'n apostrophe, I'd stick it in'na mid'dle betwe'en the two "n"s in "wan'na" to show the mis'sing "t".
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
Michael Nitabach - 16 Jan 2004 14:30 GMT > "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote on 16 Jan > 2004: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > mid'dle betwe'en the two "n"s in "wan'na" to show the mis'sing > "t". If'n you're gonn'a do this, you've gott'a stick it after the two "n"s, like so: "wann'a".
-- Mike Nitabach
CyberCypher - 16 Jan 2004 14:43 GMT Michael Nitabach <mnitabach@acedsl.com> wrote on 16 Jan 2004:
>> "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote on 16 Jan >> 2004: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If'n you're gonn'a do this, you've gott'a stick it after the two > "n"s, like so: "wann'a". I tried it that way, but it didn't look right.
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
John Dean - 16 Jan 2004 18:57 GMT > "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote on 16 Jan > 2004: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Wel'l, if'n I had'da put in'n apostrophe, I'd stick it in'na mid'dle > betwe'en the two "n"s in "wan'na" to show the mis'sing "t". There's a 't' missing? Who knew? -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply
Bob Cunningham - 16 Jan 2004 23:40 GMT > > "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote on 16 Jan > > 2004:
> >> The word "wanna" is one of those nonstandard terms (like "ain't") > >> which has a standard spelling. It's an entry in a number of online [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> supermarket chain. An anthropomorphized pear was speaking to an > >> anthropomorphized carrot, saying "Wanna' get fresh?"
> >> So what's the deal with the apostrophe?
> > Wel'l, if'n I had'da put in'n apostrophe, I'd stick it in'na mid'dle > > betwe'en the two "n"s in "wan'na" to show the mis'sing "t".
> There's a 't' missing? Who knew? You mean, I suppose, that you didn't know a "t" was missing, but you did know that two "t"s were missing. "Wanna", pronounced ['wA:n@], is a contraction of "want to", pronounced ['wA:nt t@]. The apostrophization should be "wann'a" if anyone should want to apostrophize, which no one should. Some people might want to use two apostrophes, one for each missing "t" ("wann''a"), but I wouldn't.
I guess the added "n" may be to keep the reader from wanting to pronounce it ['weIn@]. But I don't see what keeps the reader from wanting to pronounce it ['w&n@] until he or she realizes it's a contraction for "want to" and the pronunciation is then inherited from that of "want".
Aaron J. Dinkin - 23 Jan 2004 03:18 GMT [Regarding "wanna":]
> I guess the added "n" may be to keep the reader from wanting > to pronounce it ['weIn@]. But I don't see what keeps the > reader from wanting to pronounce it ['w&n@] until he or she > realizes it's a contraction for "want to" and the > pronunciation is then inherited from that of "want". The rules of English spelling do, according to which the default pronunciation for <wanna> is /'wAn@/, not /'w&n@/. A short <a> that follows a /w/ is almost universally pronounced as though it were a short <o>, unless it's followed by a velar consonant. This is very consistent. /A/ is the vowel in "want", "wanton", "wander", "wand", "wan", "Taiwan", and "swan", not to mention other words in which the following consonant isn't <n>. And "wanna", too.
-Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom
Ross Howard - 23 Jan 2004 08:55 GMT >[Regarding "wanna":] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >The rules of English spelling do, You found them? Where?
-- Ross Howard
Jonathan Jordan - 23 Jan 2004 09:24 GMT > [Regarding "wanna":] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and "swan", not to mention other words in which the following consonant > isn't <n>. And "wanna", too. It doesn't surprise me that some Americans have the same vowel in "Taiwan" as in "swan", but I would have thought that they would be FRWB. I have the "cat" vowel, but the "father" vowel wouldn't surprise me.
Jonathan
Aaron J. Dinkin - 23 Jan 2004 15:41 GMT >> /A/ is the vowel in "want", "wanton", "wander", "wand", "wan", >> "Taiwan", and "swan", not to mention other words in which the following [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > FRWB. I have the "cat" vowel, but the "father" vowel wouldn't > surprise me. To my surprise, I find that AHD agrees with your expectation in that it gives a pronunciation of "Taiwan" containing the "father" vowel. I've always said it with my "cot"="swan" vowel, as I have "Saskatchewan", "Matawan", "Agawam", and other place names.
Ah well. Foreign words don't have to follow the rules of English spelling.
-Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom
Bob Cunningham - 23 Jan 2004 09:52 GMT > [Regarding "wanna":]
> > I guess the added "n" may be to keep the reader from wanting > > to pronounce it ['weIn@]. But I don't see what keeps the > > reader from wanting to pronounce it ['w&n@] until he or she > > realizes it's a contraction for "want to" and the > > pronunciation is then inherited from that of "want".
> The rules of English spelling do, according to which the default > pronunciation for <wanna> is /'wAn@/, not /'w&n@/. A short <a> that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and "swan", not to mention other words in which the following consonant > isn't <n>. And "wanna", too. But "wack", "wacky", "wacko", "WAC", "WAF", "waff", "waft", "wag", "waggle", "wagon", "wamble", "wangle", "wax".
Your "rule" has so many exceptions as to make it useless as a strict rule, but it may be useful as a hint at a probable pronunciation. And yes, some of the words I've listed have variant pronunciations. Some people would say [wA:ft] for "waft", but I would say [w&ft]. Some would pronounce "wangle" ['w&Ngl-]; I pronounce it more like ['weNgl-] ("a" in "rain" minus the glide).
For some remarks about English-spelling rules in general, see Message-ID: <9503210000293736@mogur.com>.
Jonathan Jordan - 23 Jan 2004 10:54 GMT > > [Regarding "wanna":] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > But "wack", "wacky", "wacko", "WAC", "WAF", "waff", "waft", > "wag", "waggle", "wagon", "wamble", "wangle", "wax". Of those 13, 9 are before a velar consonant (/k/, /g/ or /N/), and so are not exceptions to Aaron's "rule". I also don't think the rule is as consistent before labials like /f/ and /m/ as it is before /n/.
> Your "rule" has so many exceptions as to make it useless as > a strict rule, but it may be useful as a hint at a probable > pronunciation. I don't think it was meant as a strict rule - it was meant as a rule indicating the default pronunciation. That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions - just that those exceptions are liable to be mispronounced by someone unfamiliar with them who sees the spellings.
There are exceptions - I gave one, for my speech, in another post - but this is English spelling we're talking about.
Jonathan
Bob Cunningham - 23 Jan 2004 11:52 GMT > > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:40:48 GMT, Bob Cunningham > <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > [Regarding "wanna":]
> > > > I guess the added "n" may be to keep the reader from wanting > > > > to pronounce it ['weIn@]. But I don't see what keeps the > > > > reader from wanting to pronounce it ['w&n@] until he or she > > > > realizes it's a contraction for "want to" and the > > > > pronunciation is then inherited from that of "want".
> > > The rules of English spelling do, according to which > > > the default pronunciation for <wanna> is /'wAn@/, not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > in which the following consonant isn't <n>. And > > > "wanna", too.
> > But "wack", "wacky", "wacko", "WAC", "WAF", "waff", "waft", > > "wag", "waggle", "wagon", "wamble", "wangle", "wax". 1 2 3 4 5 6 123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
> Of those 13, 9 are before a velar consonant (/k/, /g/ or > /N/), and so are not exceptions to Aaron's "rule". I also > don't think the rule is as consistent before labials like > /f/ and /m/ as it is before /n/. Okay, I missed the "velar consonant" provision.
> > Your "rule" has so many exceptions as to make it useless as > > a strict rule, but it may be useful as a hint at a probable > > pronunciation.
> I don't think it was meant as a strict rule - it was meant as a rule > indicating the default pronunciation. But I was responding to Aaron's taking exception to my remark that someone might want to pronounce "wanna" ['w&n@]. His point was no good so long as there is even one pronunciation of "wan-" as [w&n].
In order to prove that *no one* would want to pronounce "wanna" ['w&n@], he would have to cite a rule that says "wan" is *never* pronounced [w&n].
He indirectly conceded that he was making an invalid point when he used the words "almost".
Bob Cunningham - 23 Jan 2004 15:24 GMT Aaron Dinkin, taking exception to my remark to the effect that someone *might* want to pronounce "wanna" ['w&n@], had said
A short <a> that follows a /w/ is almost universally pronounced as though it were a short <o>, unless it's followed by a velar consonant.
[ . . . ]
> He indirectly conceded that he was making an invalid point > when he used the words "almost". Make that either "the word 'almost'" or "the words 'almost universally'". I was undecided which to say, so I blended the two.
Aaron J. Dinkin - 23 Jan 2004 15:58 GMT >> I don't think it was meant as a strict rule - it was meant as a rule >> indicating the default pronunciation. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > His point was no good so long as there is even one > pronunciation of "wan-" as [w&n]. I haven't found one yet....
> In order to prove that *no one* would want to pronounce > "wanna" ['w&n@], he would have to cite a rule that says > "wan" is *never* pronounced [w&n]. I'm not intending to prove that *no one* would want to pronounce "wanna" as /'w&n@/, only that to do so would be perverse from the perspective of the general principles of English spelling. You asked what keeps "the reader" from wanting to pronounce <wanna> with /&/; my answer is, the same thing that prevents the reader from wanting to use /E/, or /goUti/: cognizance that there's a rule of English spelling to the effect that it should have /A/. All rules of English spelling have exceptions, of course; the reader might second-guess the rule and decide (wrongly) that this word is one of the exceptions. But that would constitute guessing an exception: to pronounce <wanna> "as it is spelled" - which is a reasonably well-defined concept - would be to use /A/.
-Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom
Ben Zimmer - 23 Jan 2004 19:41 GMT > >> I don't think it was meant as a strict rule - it was meant as a rule > >> indicating the default pronunciation. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I haven't found one yet.... How would you pronounce the acronym WAN (Wide Area Network)?
Aaron J. Dinkin - 23 Jan 2004 21:30 GMT >> > His point was no good so long as there is even one >> > pronunciation of "wan-" as [w&n]. >> >> I haven't found one yet.... > > How would you pronounce the acronym WAN (Wide Area Network)? I have no idea. I've never seen it before, and now I've been thinking about the issue too much to know how I would pronounce it naturally. If the first time I saw it in a text was in a context like "LANs and WANs", I'd probably say /w&n/, but I can't be sure even of that.
-Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom
Martin Ambuhl - 23 Jan 2004 21:51 GMT > How would you pronounce the acronym WAN (Wide Area Network)? I pronounce it "Wide Area Network."
 Signature Martin Ambuhl
Bob Cunningham - 24 Jan 2004 20:23 GMT
> > >> I don't think it was meant as a strict rule - it was meant as a rule > > >> indicating the default pronunciation.
> > > But I was responding to Aaron's taking exception to my > > > remark that someone might want to pronounce "wanna" ['w&n@]. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How would you pronounce the acronym WAN (Wide Area Network)? And don't forget "wan" as in Elmer-Fudd-speak: "The wabbit wan away".
Jack Gavin - 24 Jan 2004 20:25 GMT >> How would you pronounce the acronym WAN (Wide Area Network)? > > And don't forget "wan" as in Elmer-Fudd-speak: "The wabbit > wan away". Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah!
 Signature Jack Gavin
Bob Cunningham - 24 Jan 2004 20:30 GMT [ . . . ]
> And don't forget "wan" as in Elmer-Fudd-speak: "The wabbit > wan away". I should have said "The wascally wabbit wan away".
Donna Richoux - 24 Jan 2004 22:11 GMT > [ . . . ] > > > And don't forget "wan" as in Elmer-Fudd-speak: "The wabbit > > wan away". > > I should have said "The wascally wabbit wan away". Wound and wound the wugged wock the wagged wascal wan.
Bob Cunningham - 24 Jan 2004 23:52 GMT
> > [ . . . ]
> > > And don't forget "wan" as in Elmer-Fudd-speak: "The wabbit > > > wan away".
> > I should have said "The wascally wabbit wan away".
> Wound and wound the wugged wock the wagged wascal wan. WOTFL.
Martin Ambuhl - 23 Jan 2004 19:46 GMT >>But I was responding to Aaron's taking exception to my >>remark that someone might want to pronounce "wanna" ['w&n@]. >>His point was no good so long as there is even one >>pronunciation of "wan-" as [w&n]. > > I haven't found one yet.... The closest I can come is some words beginning in <wang> pronounced /w&N/, but no /w&n/s.
 Signature Martin Ambuhl
Theodore de Bere - 23 Jan 2004 21:21 GMT > >>But I was responding to Aaron's taking exception to my > >>remark that someone might want to pronounce "wanna" ['w&n@]. > >>His point was no good so long as there is even one > >>pronunciation of "wan-" as [w&n].
> > I haven't found one yet....
> The closest I can come is some words beginning in <wang> pronounced /w&N/, > but no /w&n/s. I was carelessly relying on "wangle" for my backup, even though I pronounce it ['weNgl-] (or ['weINgl-]; I'm not sure which). It was only after Aaron said "I haven't found one yet" that it dawned on me that ['w&Ngl-] is not ['w&n gl-].
Thank heaven for Ben Zimmer's "WAN" (Wide-Area Network), which _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Eleventh Edition_ pronounces [w&n].
Thank you, Ben.
Bob Cunningham - 29 Jan 2004 14:07 GMT [ . . . ]
> to pronounce <wanna> "as it is spelled" - which is a > reasonably well-defined concept - would be to use /A/. It's meaningless to use "/A/", because that represents a phoneme. A phoneme contains all sounds that some listener perceives to be the same. That is a subjective impression on the part of the listener, so it will vary from one listener to another.
Phonemic notation has no place in a discussion of how words are pronounced.
Raymond S. Wise - 29 Jan 2004 14:50 GMT > [ . . . ] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Phonemic notation has no place in a discussion of how words > are pronounced. Not even with /'SEdjul/ and /'skEdZ@l/, /'fEbr@,wEri/ and /'fEby@,wEri/?
 Signature Raymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Django Cat - 29 Jan 2004 16:14 GMT > Phonemic notation has no place in a discussion of how words > are pronounced. Que? What else is it for then? Or do you mean "Spelling has no place in a discussion of how words are pronounced."
Django Cat - 29 Jan 2004 18:13 GMT > A phoneme contains all sounds that some listener > perceives to be the same. Um.... Millions of Spanish people percieve /v/ and /b/ as being the same phoneme, the same is true for speakers of oriental languages with /l/ & /r/, of Arabic speakers with /p/ and /b/ and no doubt there are examples from other languages which most English speakers can't distinguish. A phoneme is "the smallest unit of sound in a language that can distinguish two words" - Longman Dict of Applied Linguistics
Django Cat - 29 Jan 2004 18:15 GMT > That is a subjective impression > on the part of the listener, so it will vary from one > listener to another. That's utter cobblers.
CyberCypher - 17 Jan 2004 01:36 GMT "John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote on 17 Jan 2004:
>> "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote on 16 Jan >> 2004: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > There's a 't' missing? Who knew? Ya lern sumpun nu ever dei awn AUE, doncha?
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
Daniel James - 17 Jan 2004 12:23 GMT > > Wel'l, if'n I had'da put in'n apostrophe, I'd stick it in'na mid'dle > > betwe'en the two "n"s in "wan'na" to show the mis'sing "t". > > There's a 't' missing? Who knew? More worrying: there's an 'n' after the missing 't'(s)?
Cheers, Daniel.
Jerry Friedman - 16 Jan 2004 17:27 GMT > The word "wanna" is one of those nonstandard terms (like "ain't") which has > a standard spelling. It's an entry in a number of online dictionaries, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So what's the deal with the apostrophe? I see that now and then. It seems to mean that the word or its spelling isn't standard.
 Signature Jerry Friedman
Raymond S. Wise - 16 Jan 2004 22:25 GMT > > The word "wanna" is one of those nonstandard terms (like "ain't") which has > > a standard spelling. It's an entry in a number of online dictionaries, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I see that now and then. It seems to mean that the word or its > spelling isn't standard. The spelling "wanna" is a standard spelling of a nonstandard term, as can be seen by the fact that it is an entry in so many dictionaries. That is, to represent the pronunciation in question, "wanna" is the spelling which is usually used if the spelling "want to" is not used. It is, as the dictionary at www.infoplease.com puts it, a pronunciation spelling.
It may well be that "wanna" does represent a pronunciation in informal Standard American English. That is, like the so-called "elided-'g'" spellings such as "eatin'," "speakin'," and so forth, it is sometimes spoken by the standard speaker when speaking casually, while the more conventional pronunciation is used when speaking more precisely.
 Signature Raymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Ben Measures - 17 Jan 2004 02:53 GMT Well said, sound logic.
| The spelling "wanna" is a standard spelling of a nonstandard term, as can be | seen by the fact that it is an entry in so many dictionaries. That is, to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | by the standard speaker when speaking casually, while the more conventional | pronunciation is used when speaking more precisely. Michael Nitabach - 17 Jan 2004 04:29 GMT > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > =TT3a > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- This is the first top-post I have ever seen with a purported PGP signature.
-- Mike Nitabach
Raymond S. Wise - 17 Jan 2004 07:28 GMT > > "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote in message > news:<dqOdna3elp8YNprd4p2dnA@gbronline.com>... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > by the standard speaker when speaking casually, while the more conventional > pronunciation is used when speaking more precisely. In the newsgroup fr.lettres.langue.anglaise the use of "a-" in such dialectal sentences as "I'm a-fixin' to answer you." came up for discussion. I found the following under the entry for "a" as a preposition in *The Century Dictionary,* an American dictionary of 1895 at www.century-dictionary.com . This is relevant to the present discussion because it appears to show a standard spelling for a nonstandard usage in the very process of development. It's also interesting in its own right: Note the mention of the controversy at the end of the 19th century involving the progressive passive participle, as in "The house is being built." and "The work is being done."
[quote, with pronunciation represented by ASCII IPA]
*a*3 [@] or [eI], _prep. [<ME. and late AS. _a,_ re- duced form of _an, on,_ on, in : see _on._] A reduced form of the preposition _on,_ formerly common in all the uses of _on,_ but now restricted to cer- tain constructions in which the preposition is more or less disguised, being usually written as one word with the following noun. [...] (_d_) Of process : In course of, with a verbal noun in _-ing,_ taken passively : as, the house is _a_ building ; "while the ark was _a_ preparing" (1 Pet. iii. 20) ; while these things were _a_ doing. The prepo- sitional use is clearly seen in the alterna- tive construction with _in :_ as, "Forty and six years was this temple _in_ building," John ii. 20. In modern use the preposition is omitted, and the verbal noun is treated as a present participle taken passively : as, the house _is building._ But none of these forms of expression has become thoroughly popular, the popular instinct being shown in the recent development of the desired "progressive passive participle" : as, the house _is_ being built,_ the work _is being done,_ etc. This construction, though condemned by logicians and purists, is well estab- lished in popular speech, and will probably pass into correct literary usage. (_e_) Of action : In, to, into ; with a verbal noun in _-ing,_ taken actively. (1) With _be :_ as, to be _a_ coming ; to be _a_ doing ; to be _a_ fighting. Now only colloquial or provincial, literary usage omitting the preposition, and treating the verbal noun as a present participle : as, to be coming ; to be doing. (2) With verbs of motion : as, to go _a_ fishing ; to go _a_ wooing ; to go _a_ begging ; to fall _a_ crying ; to set _a_ going. The preposition is often joined to the noun by a hyphen, as to go _a_-fishing, or sometimes omitted, as, to go fishing, to set going, etc. For other examples of the uses of _a_3, _prep.,_ see the prepositional phrases _abed, aboard, ahead,_ etc., or the simple nouns.
[end quote]
The spelling of the usage appears to have become standardized in the "a-" spelling, that is, in the form which uses a hyphen. When the pronunciation itself is standard--the pronunciation having become lexicalized in a standard dialect--as in the words "aboard" and "ahead," no hyphen is used.
 Signature Raymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Martin Ambuhl - 17 Jan 2004 10:54 GMT > In the newsgroup fr.lettres.langue.anglaise the use of "a-" in such > dialectal sentences as "I'm a-fixin' to answer you." came up for discussion. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > because it appears to show a standard spelling for a nonstandard usage in > the very process of development. I may misunderstand your point. It seems that this only makes sense if the Century is not the end of the 19th, but the end of the 14th. The OED1, in the 3rd and 4th columns of the prepositional use of 'a' quotes, among others,
[Sense 12, "in process of," "in course of"] Langland (1393) "We have a window a worchyng" The hyphenated form Bentley (1692) "The state or condition of matter before the world was a-making..." [Sense 13a, "with /be/ engaged in. /arch./ or /dial./] Berners (1523) "They had ben a fyghtyng with theyr ennemies." The hyphenated form Montagu (1716) "Orders ... which may possibly be a month a-coming." [Sense 13b, "with verb of motion: to, into; to /go a fishing/..." Tyndale (1526) "Simon Peter sayde vunto them: I goo a fyshynge."
 Signature Martin Ambuhl
Raymond S. Wise - 17 Jan 2004 12:47 GMT > > In the newsgroup fr.lettres.langue.anglaise the use of "a-" in such > > dialectal sentences as "I'm a-fixin' to answer you." came up for discussion. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > [Sense 13b, "with verb of motion: to, into; to /go a fishing/..." > Tyndale (1526) "Simon Peter sayde vunto them: I goo a fyshynge." I think I probably did come to the wrong conclusion. I took the quote under definition (e)(2), "The preposition is often joined to the noun by a hyphen, as to go _a_-fishing, or sometimes omitted, as, to go fishing, to set going, etc." to be a statement about current usage, as if it said "The preposition is now often joined to the noun by a hyphen..." rather than a statement about how the usage had been represented historically, which was probably the meaning which was intended.
 Signature Raymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
meirman - 17 Jan 2004 10:03 GMT In alt.english.usage on Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:25:36 -0600 "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> posted:
>The spelling "wanna" is a standard spelling of a nonstandard term, as can be >seen by the fact that it is an entry in so many dictionaries. That is, to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >by the standard speaker when speaking casually, while the more conventional >pronunciation is used when speaking more precisely. I wanna be around to pick up the pieces, when somebody breaks your heart...
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years Baltimore 20 years
Adrian Bailey - 17 Jan 2004 02:18 GMT > The word "wanna" is one of those nonstandard terms (like "ain't") which has > a standard spelling. It's an entry in a number of online dictionaries, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So what's the deal with the apostrophe? No extra charge.
Adrian
|
|
|