| Author |
Message |
Andrew
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:37 pm
Post subject: loving' |
|
|
Hi,
I've kind request for info about using the apostrophe at the example as
above. Does loving' mean the same as loving?
Thanks,
Regards,
Andrew
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Andrew
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:40 pm
Post subject: Re: loving' |
|
|
Sorry, I mean lovin' like in the mc donald's advert 'I'm lovin' it' ;-
)
Użytkownik "Andrew" <andrew_809@poczta.onet.pl> napisał w wiadomości
news:dkfkn6$78b$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
| Quote: | Hi,
I've kind request for info about using the apostrophe at the example as
above. Does loving' mean the same as loving?
Thanks,
Regards,
Andrew
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:37 pm
Post subject: Re: loving' |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
| Quote: | Hi,
I've kind request for info about using the apostrophe at the example as
above. Does loving' mean the same as loving?
Thanks,
Regards,
Andrew
|
The apostrophe is sometimes used to indicate that the "g", as in
"loving", is ommitted.
This is necessary in such cases because there is a deplorable tendency
among some non-educated native speakers to leave out the "g" in such
words.
Roger
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CDB
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:00 pm
Post subject: Re: loving' |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew_809@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
news:dkfkn6$78b$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
| Quote: | Hi,
I've kind request for info about using the apostrophe at the example
as above. Does loving' mean the same as loving?
Thanks,
Regards,
Andrew
|
"Lovin'" means the same thing as "loving", but some of the
implications are different. The two spellings mark two different
nasal sounds at the end of the word: the standard velar nasal sound,
made near the back of the mouth, for "-ng" and the dental or alveolar
nasal sound, non-standard in this use, made by putting the front of
the tongue near the front teeth for "-n'". The apostrophe signals the
dropping of the letter "g" from the written word, but there is, of
course, no "g"-sound in its pronunciation.
Nowadays, especially in North American English, "lovin'" most often
indicates an informal pronunciation of the word; this is certainly
true in an advertisement, where it is intended to emphasize the
relaxed friendliness of the relationship between a multinational
corporation and its target demographic. Other uses of the
non-standard spelling have been to imply that the speech reported is
that of an uneducated person or, in Britain, of an old-fashioned
aristocrat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Phillipson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:19 pm
Post subject: Re: loving' |
|
|
<rogertidy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131111445.193792.298700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | The apostrophe is sometimes used to indicate that the "g", as in
"loving", is omitted.
This is necessary in such cases because there is a deplorable tendency
among some non-educated native speakers to leave out the "g" in such
words.
|
Not quite: this is never "necessary": but is used
because dialect spelling (representing non-standard
pronunciation by non-standard spelling) goes in and
out of fashion, and has been in fashion again for the
last decade or so cf: (1) marketing of ghetto and criminal
slang as a fashion item, (2) political anxiety to present
top politicians as not stuck-up but "jes' plain folks."
Earlier instances can be found in the works of Joel
Chandler Harris, W.H. Drummond, caption writers
in Punch, and so on. The current fashion will die a
natural death (and I hope I may be dead before it
recurs -- as it will.) The logical fallacy here is
"exclusionism:" if you spell loving as lovin' in order
to capture the people who say the word that way,
do you also mean to exclude all those New Yorkers
who say lovingk? Use of standard spelling avoids
such silliness. This was why English spelling was
first standardised in the 14th century.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:47 pm
Post subject: Re: loving' |
|
|
rogertidy@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | The apostrophe is sometimes used to indicate that the "g", as in
"loving", is ommitted.
This is necessary in such cases because there is a deplorable tendency
among some non-educated native speakers to leave out the "g" in such
words.
|
And then there are the educated politicians who deliberately drop the
"g" to show that they are "jest folks," like our dear President. Even
Al Gore succumbed to this annoying pattern during his run for the
Presidency.
Paul Brians |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adrian Bailey
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 6:49 pm
Post subject: Re: loving' |
|
|
<rogertidy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131111445.193792.298700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Andrew wrote:
Hi,
I've kind request for info about using the apostrophe at the example as
above. Does loving' mean the same as loving?
Thanks,
Regards,
Andrew
The apostrophe is sometimes used to indicate that the "g", as in
"loving", is ommitted.
This is necessary in such cases because there is a deplorable tendency
among some non-educated native speakers to leave out the "g" in such
words.
|
Deplorable my ass.
Adrian
p.s. Learn to spell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 4:19 am
Post subject: Re: loving' |
|
|
rogertidy@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Andrew wrote:
Hi,
I've kind request for info about using the apostrophe at the example as
above. Does loving' mean the same as loving?
Thanks,
Regards,
Andrew
The apostrophe is sometimes used to indicate that the "g", as in
"loving", is ommitted.
This is necessary in such cases because there is a deplorable tendency
among some non-educated native speakers to leave out the "g" in such
words.
Roger
|
Of course, no "g" is left out at all. While the usual way of referring
to this phenomenon is "dropping the 'g,'" don't be mislead by the term.
Instead, one nasal consonant, the [n] at the end of "sun," is being
replaced by another nasal consonant, the [N] at the end of "sung."
It's not just uneducated speakers who replace [N] by [n]. It's commonly
done by educated speakers as well. But since such speakers commonly mix
[N] and [n] forms, it is rare to represent the change by "n"-apostrophe
except when the writer is deliberately trying to emphasize that the
speaker is using an informal manner of speech. The same is the case
with "wanna," "gonna," "coulda," and "shoulda": Educated speakers use
those forms as well as the longer versions, but it is relatively rare
to represent these forms with pronunciation spelling when they are used
in speech by educated speakers.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in