That's the reason we add an extra syllable when a word ends with /t/ or /d/ and the -ed is appended to it. Likewise, if we removed the vowel from wanted, we'd get */wɒntt/, ill-formed. So if we removed the intervening vowel from ended: we would get */ɛndd/ which is ill-formed. Retaining the extra syllable after /t/ and /d/įor /t/ and /d/, the extra syllable didn't get removed because if we removed it, we'd get geminates in a single syllable which is against the Phonotactics of English. In order to comply with that rule, we change the /d/ to /t/ after an unvoiced consonant (think of /t/ as the devoiced form of /d/ because it's the unvoiced counterpart of the /d/ and changing from one to another doesn't affect the meaning of a word). both must be either voiced, or unvoiced) because changing from unvoiced to voiced consonants requires independent movement of the larynx, which can be difficult to switch on and off at the millisecond timing required for consonant clusters. According to English Phonotactic constraints, two obstruents (/s f t d k/ etc) in the coda (ending of a word) must agree in voicing (i.e. licit and illicit sequences of sounds), that set of rules is called phonotactics of that language. Every language has a unique set of rules that governs the permissible sequences of sounds (i.e. The reason is because if we pronounced the -ed /d/ after an unvoiced sound, there would be an ill-formed and phonotactically bad sequence of sounds. Why on earth was the -ed pronounced /t/? Pronunciation of -ed as /t/ after unvoiced consonants However, it was pronounced /t/ when it came after an unvoiced consonant such as /p θ s ʃ k/ etc (except /t/). Therefore the -ed was then pronounced only /d/ when it came immediately after a voiced consonant like /b m n l z ʒ ð/ etc (except /d/, going to explain below). Loss of the extra syllableĪfter the deletion of the vowel in -ed, the extra syllable was also lost. Loss of the vowel from -edĪround the 16th century the vowel in this ending was lost, probably because it was unstressed and weak, and weak syllables are highly prone to deletion/ syncope. So sinned-which is monosyllabic in Modern English-would've been disyllabic in Middle English. The regular past tense ending -ed used to be pronounced with a separate syllable back in Middle English. Pronunciation of -ed endings in Middle English The difference in the past tense forms can, I think, be attributed to frequency of use - as "bake" is much more commonly used than "nake", the past tense form of the former was shortened while the past tense form of the latter was not. As part of the vowel shift, the "a"s changed to a long vowel and the trailing 'e' was silenced, leading to todays pronunciations of "bayk" and "nayk" for the present tense, but while the past tense of "bake" ("baykt") was shortened the same did not happen for the past tense of "nake" ("nay'-ked"). (That's why those trailing "e"s are there in English - at the time spelling was being standardized in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries those "e"s were still being pronounced :-). As I understand it, before the vowel shift the "a" in "bake" and "nake" (yes, "nake" is a verb in English, meaning "to bare or uncover", although it's hardly ever used in its present tense form today) would have been a short vowel sound, and the trailing "e" would have been pronounced - thus, "bake" would have been pronounced "bah'-keh" and "nake" would have been pronounced "nah'-keh", with the past tenses being "bah'-ked" and "nah'-ked". This is a reflection of the Great Vowel Shift, a change in the pronunciation of English which occurred gradually from the mid-1300's to about 1700 (and which helps explain some of the weirdness of English spelling :-).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |