Date:    Wed, 13 May 1998 14:07:09 -0400
<br>From:    Larry Horn <laurence.horn[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]YALE.EDU>
<br>Subject: Re: Beijing /j/
<br>
<br>At 10:27 AM -0700 5/13/98, A. Vine wrote:
<br>>But could it possible be that it's easier (lazier?) to use the 'zh'
<br>>rather than the 'dzh' sound?  In the case of "Di Giorno", it's certainly
<br>>easier to revert to the 'zh'.  Affricates require a tremendous amount of
<br>>mouth work, and US speech seems to lean towards minimal mouth movement.
<br>
<br>I think this is basically right for a lot of the cases.  This is very much
<br>along the lines of what I think is going on with the ch-->sh in unstressed
<br>syllables "rule".  (Besides those Chicago chiropodists with their cheroots,
<br>there's also chinooks and chicanery, both of which typically are sh- rather
<br>than ch- initial, despite their spelling; at least the former is an
<br>unlikely candidate for Frenchification.)
<br>
<br>>Interestingly enough, US English tends to be truer to the original
<br>>French pronunciation than British English (e.g. Beaulieu, Ypres,
<br>>lieutenant).  Perhaps it is an island mentality, or a long-standing
<br>>history of conflict which causes the Brits to differentiate their
<br>>pronunciation.
<br>
<br>So I've always assumed.  We were just discussing variants of
<br>"garage"--doesn't this more or less rhyme with "marriage" in Britain?  At
<br>least the latter consonant is as affricated as the former.  And I've never
<br>gotten over hearing the Brits refer to Albert Camus as KAY-muss, rhyming
<br>with "squamous".
<br>
<br>
<br>Larry
<br>