 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004Geminate and unassimilated nasal consonants in English
A couple of years ago John Lawler wrote: > Just as the /n/ in "sink" gets assimilated to a velar /N/ to match > the following velar /k/, the extra /n/ in "government" gets assimilated > to the following labial /m/ and thus pronounced /m/, which we then > delete because English doesn't preserve geminate nasals. The result > is /'g@v@rm@nt/, which is normal, except for hypercorrectors. > Cf. "mnemonic", "hymn", etc. He was certainly wrong in this comment about "hypercorrectors", nor do I believe, nor suspect, that "gover ment" is a more usual pronunciation than "govern ment", but his comments raise some questions that caused me to start compiling some lists. That takes time, for someone like me who doesn't spend his time on matters linguistic; hence the delay in this reply. But before we get to this list, another issue arises: could it be that some pronunciations prevail in the very largest cities and nowhere else, regardless of what geographic region they're in? By "the very largest" I mean to exclude cities like Boston or Seattle that most people regard as large cities but that are dwarfed by NYC, LA, Chicago, and the like. I don't know how I have acquired this impression, but for some reason I have come to suspect that "gover ment" and "Feb yoo ary" are in that category. (I've always said "government" and "February" with no silent consonants and, John Lawler to the contrary notwith- standing, I think those are majority pronunciations. OK, now some lists: Words that in their usual pronunciation have "m" followed by "n" without assimilation: hymnal solemnity damnation autumnal condemnation indemnify amnesia calumny Sumner remnant gymnast chimney insomnia randomness columnist Words that in their usual pronunciation have "n" followed by "m" without assimilation: inmate imprisonment assignment entertainment enlightenment environment government enmity refinement discernment unmet unmade alignment "question mark" Words with audibly geminate nasal consonants: unnatural unnecessary non-neighbor non-native roommate Words with "n" followed by a "k" or "g" sound in which "n" sounds as in "not" and not as in "king": incomplete non-Catholic incoherent inconsistent un-Christian uncooperative unkempt ironclad Vancouver "van Gogh" Words with "n" followed by "p" or "b" in which "n" sounds as in "not" rather than like "m": commonplace Another word with consecutive nasal consonants without assimilation: Kingman (a proper name) Unlike Italian, orthographically geminate consonants in English do not usually _sound_ geminate, e.g., you don't _hear_ two consecutive "t"s in "butter" nor two consecutive "n"s in "manner" (words like "manner" must be what John Lawler had in mind (and think about that phrase "in mind", with its "n" followed by "m"; should it be added to one of these lists?)). But one case in which I _hear_ a double consonant in English even thought there's orthographically only one, is in the word "eighteen". -- Mike Hardy > A couple of years ago John Lawler wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > time, for someone like me who doesn't spend his time on matters > linguistic; hence the delay in this reply. Maybe assimilation is commoner in Britain, where we speak the language as a native tongue. I'd agree with John, and I'd say that many of the words you list (eg. "imprisonment") are good examples of assimilation. Another one I notice often is "sandwich" (samwich). Adrian > Maybe assimilation is commoner in Britain, where we speak the > language as a native tongue. Most Americans also speak English as a native tongue, and in many respects a more traditional form of English than that that prevails among the educated people of southern England, whose Received Pronunciation is a late-20th-century innovation (not to say that there was no Received Pronunciation 50 or 100 years ago, but it was different). The British have in recent decades imported lots of Frenchisms (e.g., "19 July" instead of the traditional English "July 19") made lots of spelling innovations ("baptise" rather than "baptize", which latter spelling prevailed in England 100 years ago and remains standard in America today) and punctuation innovations ("Mr Smith" rather than "Mr. Smith", which was standard in England 75 years ago) and some time in the last 200 years started calling periods "full stops", which are still called "periods" in America just as they were in England 250 years ago (see the Oxford English Dictionary, whose word histories are excellent considering how terse they are). Americans speak (somewhat) traditional English; the educated southern British speak _modern_ English (not to be confused with _Modern_English_ with a captital "M", which was Shakespeare's language and also that of Americans and British today, differing from Chaucer's "Middle English"). > I'd agree with John, and I'd say that many of the words you > list (eg. "imprisonment") are good examples of assimilation. So you say "imprisoMMent"? Mike Hardy >> Maybe assimilation is commoner in Britain, where we speak the >> language as a native tongue. > > Most Americans also speak English as a native tongue, and in many > respects a more traditional form of English than that that prevails > among the educated people of southern England, Myth. > whose Received > Pronunciation is a late-20th-century innovation (not to say that > there was no Received Pronunciation 50 or 100 years ago, but it > was different). The British have in recent decades imported lots > of Frenchisms (e.g., "19 July" instead of the traditional English > "July 19") Myth. > made lots of spelling innovations ("baptise" rather than > "baptize", which latter spelling prevailed in England 100 years ago > and remains standard in America today) Myth. > and punctuation innovations > ("Mr Smith" rather than "Mr. Smith", which was standard in England [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Shakespeare's language and also that of Americans and British > today, differing from Chaucer's "Middle English"). Myths. >> I'd agree with John, and I'd say that many of the words you >> list (eg. "imprisonment") are good examples of assimilation. > > So you say "imprisoMMent"? Christmas boring you, is it, Mike?  SignatureSimon R. Hughes > > whose Received > > Pronunciation is a late-20th-century innovation (not to say that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Myth. Have we not seen in this very newsgroup more than one British person who said that saying "July 19" or "July 19th" was "American"? Or did you mean that those are not traditional in England? If the latter, I can show you Boswell's _Life_of_ _Johnson_. > > made lots of spelling innovations ("baptise" rather than > > "baptize", which latter spelling prevailed in England 100 years ago > > and remains standard in America today) > > Myth. Let's see ... for that word Oxford is showing us both spellings in a variety of different centuries, so maybe I exaggerated. > > and punctuation innovations > > ("Mr Smith" rather than "Mr. Smith", which was standard in England [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Myths. Concerning "Mr. Smith", I've come across at least one British person saying it "looks weird" or something to that general effect, and I've seen Boswell's aforementioned biography of Johnson doing it that way. And one Englishman posted to this newsgroup that he learned it that way at school in England in 1940. And it's not hard to find lots of British people now writing "Mr Smith" with no punctuation. Why is that being called a myth? As for "period", are we not incessantly told that the British now prefer to say "full stop"? Is it not true that they say that? Or do they say that but also say "period"? Does not OED give various examples of the British using the word "period" in that way in earlier centuries? And do you mean to say that the attribution of excellence to OED's histories of words is a myth? -- Mike Hardy > Have we not seen in this very newsgroup more than one > British person who said that saying "July 19" or "July 19th" > was "American"? Or did you mean that those are not traditional > in England? If the latter, I can show you Boswell's _Life_of_ > _Johnson_. Saying "July nineteen" is American. Writing "7/19" is American. "July 19 or 19th" is both American and British. SignatureRob Bannister > Saying "July nineteen" is American. It is? Would any Americans here say "July nineteen"? I wouldn't; I think it sounds odd. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > > Saying "July nineteen" is American. > > It is? Would any Americans here say "July nineteen"? I wouldn't; I think > it sounds odd. It sounds odd to me too, and "July nineteenth" is the ordinary, default way to say "July 19", but there are special circumstances in which I'd say "July nineteen". I'm not sure what they are, tho'. > > Saying "July nineteen" is American. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -Aaron J. Dinkin > Dr. Whom _Writing_ "July 19" is commonplace; saying "July 19th" is also commonplace. It seems some younger people from England think 7/19/2003 is "American". -- Mike Hardy > > > Saying "July nineteen" is American. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > also commonplace. It seems some younger people from England > think 7/19/2003 is "American". -- Mike Hardy *Everybody* outside America thinks 7/19/2003 is American. (Well, every English-speaking body, anyhow.) On Aaron's point, we *do* hear "July nineteen" from American radio and television reporters. I'm interested (and pleased) to hear it's not typical. Mike. > > > Saying "July nineteen" is American. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > also commonplace. It seems some younger people from England > think 7/19/2003 is "American". That's because it is. Even those of us who sometimes say "July the nineteenth", or write "July 19" or "July 19th", would never abbreviate it to "7/19" - it would always be "19/7". I don't know whether the 7/19 form has ever been used in Britain, but it isn't now. Jonathan >>>Saying "July nineteen" is American. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > also commonplace. It seems some younger people from England > think 7/19/2003 is "American". -- Mike Hardy Would you like to expand on this statement? *Only* Americans write the date in the form 7/19/2003, although July 19 is as common as 19 July elsewhere too. SignatureRob Bannister >>Saying "July nineteen" is American. > > It is? Would any Americans here say "July nineteen"? I wouldn't; I think > it sounds odd. I agree it sounds odd. I have heard it rarely, but only from Americans - perhaps more often with smaller numbers, though obviously not July four. SignatureRob Bannister > > Have we not seen in this very newsgroup more than one > > British person who said that saying "July 19" or "July 19th" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Saying "July nineteen" is American. Writing "7/19" is American. "July 19 > or 19th" is both American and British. This Englishman usually says "the nineteenth of July" but might well, for no apparent reason, instead say "July the nineteenth". In writing I always use "19 July 2003" or (on a note) "19 Jul 03" or even "19 vii 03": many users of BrE would insert the "th" or change the order to "July 19[th]", probably also inserting a common before the year. In this, as in some other matters of usage, BrE seems more flexible (or chaotic?) than AmE. The only AmE variant that we never used until 2001 is "7/19": respect now enforces the adoption of AmE "9/11" when referring to the terrorist attacks of that day. Alan Jones > > Have we not seen in this very newsgroup more than one > > British person who said that saying "July 19" or "July 19th" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Saying "July nineteen" is American. No. We would say "July nineteenth" or "July the nineteenth" or "the ninetheenth of July", and write "July 19" or "7/19". > Writing "7/19" is American. "July 19 > or 19th" is both American and British. SignatureJ. > > Maybe assimilation is commoner in Britain, where we speak the > > language as a native tongue. > > Most Americans also speak English as a native tongue, and in many > respects a more traditional form of English than that that prevails > among the educated people of southern England, What I mean is that English in England has continued to develop naturally but in the American variety certain developments have been stunted by the fact that the language wasn't native to a lot of the people who had to use it. To give the first example that came into my head, the surname Cunningham is pronounced "in full" by Americans, while our pronunciation of it is more "organic". > > I'd agree with John, and I'd say that many of the words you > > list (eg. "imprisonment") are good examples of assimilation. > > So you say "imprisoMMent"? Exactly. Adrian On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:47:38 -0000, someone (it doesn't matter who) said: [ . . . ] > English in England has continued to develop naturally > but in the American variety certain developments have been stunted by the > fact that the language wasn't native to a lot of the people who had to use > it. To give the first example that came into my head, the surname Cunningham > is pronounced "in full" by Americans, while our pronunciation of it is more > "organic". I have no reason to doubt that the pronunciation of my name that has been used in the family for generations is little different from the pronunciation used by the Cunninghams who brought it from Scotland in the mid 19th century. Why would my grandfather, who was born in 1861 and said clearly ['kVniN,h&m], have wanted to pronounce it any differently from the way he learned it from his parents? Aren't the Scottish people native speakers of their varieties of English? How is "Cunningham" pronounced now by unaffected speakers in Kirkcaldy? If ordinary people in Kirkcaldy and thereabouts don't pronounce distinctly all of the syllables of "Cunningham" these days, it's probably because their speech has been degraded in the past hundred years by attempts to sound English. In that sense, they would no longer be truly native speakers. [...] > > > I'd agree with John, and I'd say that many of the words you > > > list (eg. "imprisonment") are good examples of assimilation. > > > > So you say "imprisoMMent"? > > Exactly. Oh dear! I still find it hard to get used to that one, and it's been fifty years on and off surrounded by Brits. Experiment suggests that -mm- is quite as difficult to say as -nm-, so I also find it quite hard to account for: if you just said -m-, I could see the point. When I first came here, the -w-ization of -l- actually led to incomprehension, though at least I can understand why that happens. Mike. > [...] > > > > I'd agree with John, and I'd say that many of the words you [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > When I first came here, the -w-ization of -l- actually led to > incomprehension, though at least I can understand why that happens. What's not to understand? The spelling "imprisonment" is the result of an assimilation: "in-" has become "im-". If assimilation wasn't natural it wouldn't happen; nobody goes out of their way to say "samwich". Adrian > > "Adrian Bailey" <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:<523Ib.263$z43.15@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > assimilation: "in-" has become "im-". If assimilation wasn't natural it > wouldn't happen; nobody goes out of their way to say "samwich". I referred specifically to -mm-, which, for me at any rate, takes an effort. -np- going to -mp- is easy to explain, as is -ndw- to -mw-, or -nm- to -m-. Mike. > > > Maybe assimilation is commoner in Britain, where we speak the > > > language as a native tongue. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > fact that the language wasn't native to a lot of the people who had to use > it. Certainly the development of the American language has been affected by the immigrant tides, but "stunt" seems entirely inappropriate as a description of the effect. > To give the first example that came into my head, the surname Cunningham > is pronounced "in full" by Americans, while our pronunciation of it is more > "organic". SignatureJ. > > > > Maybe assimilation is commoner in Britain, where we speak the > > > > language as a native tongue. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > by the immigrant tides, but "stunt" seems entirely inappropriate as > a description of the effect. What *has* happened is that, as is common, speech groups further from the "linguistic center" of the language have tended to be more conservative, and the language changed more slowly in America than it did in England. Within America, urban areas that had more contact with England (such as Boston and Virginia) changed faster than more rural areas, etc. These days the influential linguistic centers of the English language would seem to be largely in the US, notably in California, and that's where the most rapid change is likely to take place. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |You may hate gravity, but gravity 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |doesn't care. Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Clayton Christensen kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > What *has* happened is that, as is common, speech groups further from > the "linguistic center" of the language have tended to be more [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > would seem to be largely in the US, notably in California, and that's > where the most rapid change is likely to take place. Seems to me that there are two kinds of changes going on, which I, being a non-linguist (NTTAWWT), will call phonological and something-else-ological, where the latter has to do not with phonetic-type stuff but with things like grammar and vocabulary and stuff. But when you look at where the radical phonetic stuff is happening, it isn't necessarily in places like California, or in the major population centers. What could be more radical change than the Northern Cities Vowel Shift, taking place not in hip California but in the humble, semi-Arctic Rustbelt towns of your native Northern Midwest? I know you said "rapid", not "radical", but they both begin with "ra", which calls to mind spaced-out Chicagoan jazz bandleader Sun Ra. But I digress. Along the same lines, it seems that in California it's in the population centers that the CIC onslaught is being most fiercely resisted. Also, why "notably in California"? If you're alluding to cultural influence, which can lead to certain idioms and phrases becoming popular, I'll grant you that California had a great ride for a few decades, aided by population migration and Hollywood and things like that, but that's all over with now. Dena Jo *left* California. So did Mike Oliver. It does seem to be the case that outside the US, people, and particularly younger speakers, are copying AmE ways to an extent that's enough to alarm and enrage older and conservative speakers, but I think this is just a same-o, same-o thing, Hiberno-AusNZSAo-Britic people having had an obsession with American culture for at least 50 years now. But yeah, maybe AmE spellings and a few AmE grammaticisms are on the rise outside North America (there's the anecdotal evidence that "gotten" is on the increase in Britain and Australia, but I find this somewhat incredible, so to say). > > Maybe assimilation is commoner in Britain, where we speak the > > language as a native tongue. > > Most Americans also speak English as a native tongue, and in many > respects a more traditional form of English than that that prevails > among the educated people of southern England, What, by pronouncing "marry", "merry" and "Mary" the same, rhyming "father" with "bother" and pronouncing "due" like "do"? <snip> BrE has changed, but so has AmE (often in different ways). I remain to be convinced that BrE changed more. For a start, how do you measure the amount of change? Jonathan Adrian Bailey escribió : >> A couple of years ago John Lawler wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > many of the words you list (eg. "imprisonment") are good examples of > assimilation. Another one I notice often is "sandwich" (samwich). As a curiosity, I can tell you that the Spanish pronunciation of sandwich is something as /'SaNgui/ (shángüi). We have adopted the word to mean a sandwich made with sliced bread, meanwhile a sandwich made with a whole baguette is usually called "bocadillo", although lately in some posh places it is called baguette /ba'Ge/. SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I am an artist You are a Bohemian He forgot to shave this morning (Craig Brown) >> A couple of years ago John Lawler wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > list (eg. "imprisonment") are good examples of assimilation. Another one I > notice often is "sandwich" (samwich). Also, there is certainly a hint of [N] in words like inconsistent, incoherent, especially in rapid speech. SignatureRob Bannister > But before we get to this list, another issue arises: could > it be that some pronunciations prevail in the very largest cities [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > no silent consonants and, John Lawler to the contrary notwith- > standing, I think those are majority pronunciations. John Jacob Lawler, the Joe DiMaggio of Linguistics, is certainly wrong some of the time, much as Anthony Wedgwood Cooper is right some of the time, but in this case I'm sure he's dead right. I pronounce the first <n> in "government", but that's because elementary school teachers tried to get pupils to do so and for some reason I paid attention. "February" might be another matter, since there seem to be a few popular pronunciations, but in New York (Largest City in America), "Feb yoo erry" is, subject to qualification by the authoritative B. Wickham, the Standard pronunciation. > OK, now some lists: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > indemnify amnesia calumny Sumner remnant gymnast > chimney insomnia randomness columnist I agree, tho' for "chimney" there are some interesting dialectisms -- Coop might say "chimbley" for example. > Words that in their usual pronunciation have "n" followed by "m" > without assimilation: > > inmate imprisonment assignment entertainment enlightenment > environment government enmity refinement discernment unmet > unmade alignment "question mark" OTOH, there's some assimilation in proper names. Examples include "Monmouth (New Jersey)", as Young Joey has noted; and "Entenmann's", the baked-goods company, which is pronounced /'Ent@,m@nz/ (that B. Wickham will agree with). > Words with "n" followed by a "k" or "g" sound in which > "n" sounds as in "not" and not as in "king": > > incomplete non-Catholic incoherent inconsistent un-Christian > uncooperative unkempt ironclad Vancouver "van Gogh" I think I use [N] at least much of the time in "incomplete", "incoherent", "inconsistent". >"Entenmann's", the baked-goods company, which is >pronounced /'Ent@,m@nz/. Maybe in obscure & negligible national nooks, but in General American it's more like [Ent?nmnz] or [En?nmnz], with the question mark standing for a glottal stop. Those schwas of yours and Professor Lawler's last too long to make it! > OTOH, there's some assimilation in proper names. Examples include > "Monmouth (New Jersey)", as Young Joey has noted; and > "Entenmann's", the baked-goods company, which is pronounced > /'Ent@,m@nz/ (that B. Wickham will agree with). There may be some assimilation in "Monmouth", but, contrary to Young Joey's claim, it's not complete. Even at the extreme, there is still quite a bit of "n" left, and many New Jerseyans pronounce it without any assimilation at all. -- Mike Nitabach > > Words that in their usual pronunciation have "n" followed by "m" > > without assimilation: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > baked-goods company, which is pronounced /'Ent@,m@nz/ (that B. Wickham > will agree with). I've heard this one. I think if that "n" were audible then most of us might pronounce it as a syllable with no vowel. > > Words with "n" followed by a "k" or "g" sound in which > > "n" sounds as in "not" and not as in "king": [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I think I use [N] at least much of the time in "incomplete", "incoherent", > "inconsistent". OK. What about "unkempt", "ironclad", and "van Gogh"? Mike Hardy > > I think I use [N] at least much of the time in "incomplete", "incoherent", > > "inconsistent". > > OK. What about "unkempt", "ironclad", and "van Gogh"? I don't think I'd usually use [N] in "unkempt" or "ironclad", but I'm not sure. Might depend on how fast I was speaking. Definitely not in "van Gogh" [v&n 'goU]. > John Jacob Lawler, the Joe DiMaggio of Linguistics, is certainly wrong > some of the time, much as Anthony Wedgwood Cooper is right some of the > time, but in this case I'm sure he's dead right. I pronounce the first > <n> in "government", but that's because elementary school teachers tried > to get pupils to do so and for some reason I paid attention. I don't remember "government" being one of those words (ours in Chicago were "February" and "library"), but I seem to have the /n/ when speaking slowly, but not when speaking at a normal pace. (I was going to insist that I always pronounced it, but then I actually listened to myself and was surprised.) > OTOH, there's some assimilation in proper names. Examples include > "Monmouth (New Jersey)", as Young Joey has noted; and "Entenmann's", the > baked-goods company, which is pronounced /'Ent@,m@nz/ (that B. Wickham > will agree with). We pronounced it simply /'Entm@nz/. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Marge: You liked Rashomon. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Homer: That's not how *I* remember Palo Alto, CA 94304 | it. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> I pronounce the first >> <n> in "government", but that's because elementary school teachers tried [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > going to insist that I always pronounced it, but then I actually > listened to myself and was surprised.) I propose that the following might happen: the tongue moves in the direction to pronounce an /n/, but in normally paced speech, the time until the the mouth closes for the following /m/ is too short to make the /n/ audible. So there would be an articulatory trace which would make you believe you spoke an /n/, or one could maybe say that you spoke one, but it isn't discernible to the hearer. Oliver C. [...] > Oliver C. Sorry for posting under the wrong identity. I wonder how this could happen. Also sprach Oliver Cromm: > [...] >> >> Oliver C. > > Sorry for posting under the wrong identity. I wonder how this could > happen. Blame Rey; that's what other people are doing. SignatureSimon R. Hughes > Also sprach Oliver Cromm: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Blame Rey; that's what other people are doing. Do I have to let him out of my killfile before I blame him? Oliver C. Also sprach Oliver Cromm: >> Also sprach Oliver Cromm: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Do I have to let him out of my killfile before I blame him? Not at all; he jumps in and our of killfiles like a pro. SignatureSimon R. Hughes I've got an almanac, and I'm not afraid to use it! <snip> > > OK, now some lists: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I agree, tho' for "chimney" there are some interesting dialectisms -- Coop > might say "chimbley" for example. Presumably a dissimilation of /mn/ to /ml/. I'm not sure about "columnist", but I agree on the others. > > Words that in their usual pronunciation have "n" followed by "m" > > without assimilation: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > baked-goods company, which is pronounced /'Ent@,m@nz/ (that B. Wickham > will agree with). I pronounce Monmouth (Gwent) as /'mA.nm@T/. I don't know how the locals say it. I can't help thinking that in fast speech (which is probably what most people produce most of the time) there usually will be some assimilation of the /nm/ cluster in most of those words, at least those where the /n/ is in an unstressed syllable. > > Words with "n" followed by a "k" or "g" sound in which > > "n" sounds as in "not" and not as in "king": [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I think I use [N] at least much of the time in "incomplete", "incoherent", > "inconsistent". I agree with Michael on all of those. Jonathan (in the UK) > Words that in their usual pronunciation have "n" followed by "m" > without assimilation: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > unnatural unnecessary non-neighbor non-native roommate "Monmouth" would be in the second group, at least as pronounced by sober New Jerseyans. -- Mike Nitabach |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.