Merge

Dminor

Senior Member
Dutch, the Netherlands
"And I would like to add that at least my [v] and [f] are still quite distinguished, and that the occurring merge sounds weird to me at times.."

Any comments about this sentence?
 
  • Dminor

    Senior Member
    Dutch, the Netherlands
    It stands for the pronunciation of "v" and "f". In the Netherlands, they tend to get merged, so this was my comment on that.
     

    A90Six

    Senior Member
    England - English.
    GenJen54 said:
    Any context?

    I don't know what [v] and [f] are supposed to represent.

    Merge could be a business merge. It could be another type of merge.
    I assumed they are the sounds of v and f and the possible merging or corruption of the sounds in some words.

    Have to - Haff to.
    Of - Ov.

    But, as you say, there isn't enough context to make a clear comment.
     

    GenJen54

    Senior Member
    USA - English
    Ah! Thank you, that's very helpful.

    To me, the merge would imply that somehow the two sounds would be combined to make a distinct, third sound. It doesn't really work here, especially since you note that your pronunciation of both [v] and [f] are distinct.

    Edit:
    A90six said:
    I assumed they are the sounds of v and f and the possible merging or corruption of the sounds in some words.

    Have to - Haff to.
    Of - Ov.
    This makes some more sense. I still don't like the word "merge" with sounds. In this case, the sounds are reversed, everted, transposed perhaps?
     

    Dminor

    Senior Member
    Dutch, the Netherlands
    [v] tends to get devoiced, so both <v> and <f> are mostly pronounced like [f]. How should we call this process then, if not merging?
     

    A90Six

    Senior Member
    England - English.
    Dminor said:
    [v] tends to get devoiced, so both <v> and <f> are mostly pronounced like [f]. How should we call this process then, if not merging?
    If the sounds were merged both the f sound and v sound would sounded together as one, vf.

    In your example the v sound has not been chaged.
    The f sound has been transferred to the letter v.
    The f sound has supplanted the v sound.

    If there is a word that exclusively describes this sound change, I don't know it. Perhaps someone else might.:)
     

    Kevman

    Senior Member
    USA English
    A90Six said:
    If there is a word that exclusively describes this sound change, I don't know it. Perhaps someone else might.:)
    Dminor said it: :D
    [v] tends to get devoiced, so both <v> and <f> are mostly pronounced like [f].
    But that only describes the change in one direction, [v] -> [f].

    The only reason merge would be problematic to me here is that it seems to suggest that the [v] is devoiced somewhat and the [f] is voiced somewhat and the resulting sound is somewhere in the middle. :confused:

    However, I had to do a little bit of overthinking about the meaning of merge to reach that impression. On first read the sentence seemed perfectly fine to me. :)
     

    foxfirebrand

    Senior Member
    Southern AE greatly modified by a 1st-generation Scottish-American mother, and growing up abroad.
    If you have two slightly-different phonemes and merge them, it can simply mean you end up with one sound instead of two. That sound can be identical to one of the original phonemes without violating the meaning of "merge."

    I do understand the objection, but I don't think "merge" has to be used that specifically, and that analogously with a physical process, like mixing blue and yellow paint to get green. If you had two half-empty cans of blue paint left over from a job, you could merge them into one so as to reduce the surface area exposed to air. Right?

    When you merge two lanes of traffic, you get one lane that does not differ in any qualitative way from either of the original lanes-- it's just got more cars in it.
    .
     

    Dminor

    Senior Member
    Dutch, the Netherlands
    Hmm, sounds convincing indeed. Apparently, the quality of the new product doesn't really matter (so could as well be the same as one of the former elements of it). Besides, the quantity (would that become another objection) is still the same: the sound [f] still occurs everywhere [v] and [f] used to occur (and still do, for some persons ;)).

    Thanks everyone!
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top