Great question!
I've always thought of "have" and "have" as two words (or two homographic
morphemes). One "have" is a free morpheme lexical verb related to
possession; it's free and carries meaning alone. The other "have" is a bound
morpheme that only makes sense when it is attached to "to," and this version
functions as a modal verb similar to "must."
While these two "words" look alike, they are pronounced differently always.
The free morpheme contains the "v" sound while the bound morpheme contains
the "f" sound.
Now, that's just how I've always thought about it; I make NO claim to being
correct!
It's interesting to note that "have to," meaning "must," is a very commonly
used example of grammaticalization in progress, leading to the emergent
"new" single-morpheme form (just a reanalysis): "hafta."
Also interesting is that the pronunciation difference is very minute. The
"f" sound and the "v" sound are really the same sound, just with a
voicing/vibration of the vocal cords difference (or, as Herb's convinced me,
a matter of lenition/fortition).
I'm interested in how others view these divergent uses of "have."
John Alexander
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Ingerman, Prudence (INGERMAN) <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Oh I am so enjoying this. Here is another which has kept my awake at
> night.
>
>
>
> How many children do you have? I have two. ( now to be referred to as A)
>
>
>
> Why do you work? I have to. ( B)
>
>
>
> In A, the stress is clearly on the word two. In B, the stress is on
> the auxiliary verb.
>
> My question is this, why is the V in “have two” pronounced fully when it
> is not in the stressed word, and why is the V in the verb “have to”
> pronounced as an F when it is clearly stressed. I realize this is a
> pronunciation problem but I am sure it is linked to grammar. I think
> somehow the omission or understood verb ( work) is related to the reduced
> pronunciation but I am not sure how.
>
>
>
> Thanks for thinking,
>
>
>
> Prudence
>
>
>
> *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *STAHLKE, HERBERT F
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:40 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: a grammar question
>
>
>
> These are tricky. If we treat “mother-in-law” as a phrasal compound, then
> the –s plural would go on the head noun as a suffix. If we say
> “mother-in-laws” as a plural then either we’re attaching plural –s to a
> phrase, making it a clitic, or we’re treating the compound as a noun stem,
> in which case –s is a suffix. I lean towards the latter since these phrasal
> compounds tend to become stems over time. The genitive plural
> “mothers-in-law’s” of recent polygamous fame, bears out the former analysis,
> with the plural suffix on “mother” and the genitive clitic –s on the phrasal
> compound. Other examples of phrasal compounds becoming stems would be
> “nice” < Latin nescius “foolish, ignorant” and “atonement” < at+ (one +
> ment). “onement” goes back to the 14th c., “atonement” to the early 16th,
> and the backformation “atone” to the mid 16th.
>
>
>
> Complicating the question of what the –s is is the fact that we generally
> can’t pluralize nouns within a compound noun, just the whole compound, so we
> can’t say “bookskeeper” but rather “bookkeepers.” That’s what led me, in a
> paper that’s taking its time getting published, to argue that the –s in
> sportsman, helmsman, gameskeeper, etc. is a derivational affix, not an
> inflectional affix. Derivational affixes can occur within compounds.
> Inflectional affixes cannot.
>
>
>
> Herb
>
>
>
> *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *John Dews-Alexander
> *Sent:* 2009-05-12 14:07
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: a grammar question
>
>
>
> Herb, I know you've studied clitics extensively; is there any evidence of
> the English plural marker (-s) moving away from affix status and toward
> clitic status?
>
> I ask this because in actual usage, I hear "mother-in-laws" much more often
> than I hear "mothers-in-law" for the plural.
>
> As a teacher I offer the wisdom of bowing to style guides, but as a
> linguist I get to have more fun and find out what *actually* happens in
> language. In this case, the linguist in me is more intrigued than the
> teacher.
>
> John Alexander
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:44 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Works only if both husbands have remarried. Otherwise aren't both
> mothers-in-law your mother. Could her taste in clothes really be that bad?
> And so soon after Mother's Day.
>
> Welcome to the list!
>
> Herb
>
> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
> Emeritus Professor of English
> Ball State University
> Muncie, IN 47306
> [log in to unmask]
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [
>
> *Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/<ATEG@To%20join%20or%20leave%20this%20LISTSERV%20list,%20please%20visit%20the%20list%27s%20web%20interface%20at:%0d%0a%20%20%20%20%20http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html%0d%0aand%20select%20>
> *
>
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
> "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
