Date:    Wed, 13 May 1998 11:38:02 -0500
<br>From:    "Donald M. Lance" <engdl[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]SHOWME.MISSOURI.EDU>
<br>Subject: Re: Beijing /j/
<br>
<br>Larry Horn wrote:
<br>
<br>>  I've usually heard "Chicano"
<br>>with a Spanish affricate rather than a French fricative, but I think
<br>>there's also a phonological process whereby a number of words in which [ch]
<br>>occurs in a totally unstressed syllable is de-affricativized.  Consider,
<br>>for example, Chicago (with a [sh]) vs. Chi-town and Chisox ('Chicago White
<br>>Sox') with a [ch].  Or chiropodist, with either initial [k] or [sh], but
<br>>not [ch].  Or cheroot (evidently from Tamil), usually (in my experience)
<br>>[sh] rather than [ch].  I think the key here is not the extension of [+
<br>>French] but the lack of stress on the first syllable; maybe Chicano (in
<br>>losing its [+ Spanish] feature?) is assimilated to this class rather than
<br>>treated as specifically French.
<br>
<br>Actually, I've heard only a few people say 'shicano'.  Larry's analysis is
<br>right.
<br>
<br>Also, as Garland Bills points out, in some dialects of Mexican Spanish
<br>there is alternation between -sh- and -ch-, but the gringos who say
<br>'mashete' wouldn't be imitating the 'munsho' dialect [dialectal
<br>pronunciation of 'mucho'].
<br>
<br>DMLance
<br>