Test yourself. Say: I have to read this blog post. Then: I have better things to do.
I just became conscious of that difference when I was listening to an audiobook and could tell that the reader believed he was encountering a "have" that meant "must" when it was in fact a "have" that referred to the possession of something. I haff to say that the wrongness of "haff" was obvious.
Here's a discussion of the subject.
ADDED: I think the same thing happens with "has." Compare how you'd say He has to go and He has two GoPro cameras. I think the native speaker says "hass" to mean "must" but "hazz" to refer to ownership.
September 20, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
I tested myself before I read further and didn't notice the difference. After I read your explanation I realized that when I speak quickly or casually, I slur the phrase "have to" into "haff to" or "haffta." Try "I have two dogs," and "I have to feed my dogs."
I didn't notice until reading this. Good catch on the finer point, Bob. The only time I'd say "haff" in the possessive sense is, "ve haff vays auf making you tahk."
This is a non-issue. The spoken language and the written language are two different things. If you don't like "haff," you will hate the British upper class. They elide every syllable they can, and favor horrors like "ain't."
Spoken language uses all sorts of devices, including facial expressions and hand gestures and punches in the face, for emphasize, sarcasm, sex, etc. "Haff" is a means of emphasis.
It's just voiced vs unvoiced, probably led by the need to make the following "t" unvoiced.
A voiced "t" is a "d". Try "have do."
" If you don't like "haff," you…"
I'm not saying I don't like it. I'm saying that for native speakers of English, there are 2 different pronunciations depending on the meaning of the word.
I was expecting it to be the "I should of" pronunciation of "I should have". That one's common enough that I often see it written as "should of".
And then there is the third pronunciation of ‘have’; when used as an auxiliary verb it is often pronounced “of.” It is even written that way, either from ignorance or in an attempt to convey dialect.
“It ain’t right I wasn’t there because if I had of been there I would of known.” — Flannery O’Connor, “A Good Man is Hard to Find”
(Ah, I see Mary Beth made the same observation whilst I was writing mine.)
I have to say that you have a point.
English is an interesting language. Different pronunciations for words in different contexts and the same pronunciation for different words (to, two, too).
English is an interesting language. Different pronunciations for words in different contexts and the same pronunciation for different words (to, two, too).
Similarly, many editors don't like when you start a piece with the word "The..."
But there is a difference of meaning and precision when it is used to denote the single most.
"The" (long "e") vs "tha".
To me, it's more a matter of emphasis than pronunciation.
White people have to have things their way.
It is all there, people...
It is turtles all the way down.
Ann Althouse said...
I'm saying that for native speakers of English, there are 2 different pronunciations depending on the meaning of the word.
I like it. It's dialect.
This reminds me of Bernie Mac in Bad Santa.
This is a link to Bernie Mac in Bad Santa. THERE ARE NUMEROUS INSTANCES OF CURSE WORDS BEING USED!!!
Has anyone else noticed that this blog has morphed into a class discussion of grammar and the English language in the past couple months?
The subject matter has become more a vehicle for the blogress' fascination with language and the mis-use thereof, not that there is anything wrong with that.
Rhhardin said...
"It's just voiced vs unvoiced, probably led by the need to make the following "t" unvoiced.
A voiced "t" is a "d". Try "have do.""
Normally I would prefer a romantic explanation involving Anglo-Saxon inflections and whatnot, but in the is case it is as simple as what rhhardin said. It is the same reason we have both "a" and "an" as articles.
There are two different pronunciations of 'th' in English, for example, 'thin' and 'then'. That's because 'th' is descended from an Old English letter called 'edth' and a nordic rune called 'thorn', each of which had slightly different pronunciations.
BTW, choirs are taught to sing 'thee' before words starting with vowels, and 'tha' before consonants.
It's simple, really. The "have" in "have to" comes before the "t" in "to". When speaking quickly, that forces the v to become an f because of the plosive effect of the t. If you think of other possible combinations, for example, "I have two birds", the emphasis is on "two" and allows one to complete the v sound, but when the emphasis is on "have" and it is followed by a plosive consonant, the v will become an f.
Similarly I suspect that the word "halve" is voiced because, as a verb, it is commonly followed by the definite article
That "English Language & Usage Stack Exchange" site needs some proofreading... a bit discouraging,no?
Sean Gleeson: And then there is the third pronunciation of ‘have’; when used as an auxiliary verb it is often pronounced “of.” It is even written that way, either from ignorance or in an attempt to convey dialect.
That's not an alternative pronunciation of "have". It is an alternate pronunciation of "'ve", and it's really not very far off the correct pronunciation.
"ve haff vays auf making you tahk."
Which reminds me of a terrible yet funny (or funny yet revolting) joke:
One freezing morning at the concentration game the SS guards lined up the poor starving inmates.
"Now, you scum, ve'er all going to do ze clock exercise!" yelled Sturmbannführer Schultz, the dreaded commandant. "Any of you who fail to complete zis exercise will face consequences."
The dreaded clock exercise! The prisoners had heard of this before; it was nothing less than group torture. Each inmate will be forced to sway left and right in perfect rhythm, saying tick when swaying left, then tock when swaying right.
The prisoners begin their "exercise" just as the sun peaks over the eastern horizon. Tick, tock, tick, tock... hour after hour the inmates sway left then right... thousands of them assembled rank and file in the appelplatz swaying like pendulums. Tick, tock, tick, tock...
More hours pass and they begin to fall. One by one they collapse to the ground in crumpled heaps of exhaustion, until finally there is only one man standing in the rear rank.
Sturmbannführer Schultz is curious. How is it that this prisoner alone can endure the clock exercise, he wonders. He decides to have a closer look and discovers the man is cheating! He sways left and says "tick," but he doesn't sway to the right.
"Zo, you think you can cheat ze SS, do you, pig-dog?" screams the commandant at the top of his lungs. He draws his Luger pistol from its holster and levels it at the emaciated inmate's head. "Well, think again because ve haff veys of making you tock!"
Isn't haffta simply eliding the TO in the phrase have to?
No one has to say it that'taway. It is used like speakers elision in high speed French.
I blame the Norman Conquest.
Fantastic find and English lesson explanation. You call the pronunciation "dialect". American dialect, not only reserved for regions. Very cool, indeed.
"Should of" is a misspelling of should've. Also a misapprehension, I am sure.
I think rhhardin has it. Sandhi.
The same thing also happens with "used" and "supposed". Compare:
I used to go there all the time.
I used two eggs in that recipe.
I'm supposed to be ready by this afternoon.
I supposed two hours would be enough time.
Similar things happen with "going to" ("gonna") and "want to" ("wanna") when they are used modally, too.
"I had had a bad day already"
I, and a lot (most?), people pronounce this "I hud had"
The hud pronunciation doesn't really show up at any other point.
I hate that double "had" construction and try to avoid it, but it's grammatically correct as far as I know.
"Did you ever notice the 2 different pronunciations of the word "have"?"
Is this really the sort of question we should be "axin"?
I think compressing words into conjunctions is a different process -- going to and want to becoming gonna and wanna is more like going from "I have" to "I've." I'm not observing the process of dropping vowels but the change in the pronunciation of the consonant, where the same word gets a harder or softer version of the consonant depending on the meaning.
So Bob's test sentence — "I have two dogs," and "I have to feed my dogs" — made this very clear. The "to" sound is the same in both, but you can tell there's a different way to pronounce "have." I think "has" is the same too. "He has two dogs" has a different "has" than we hear in "He has to feed his dogs." The "must" meaning is conveyed by a harsher sounding consonant.
Many have pointed out the German-sounding quality, but that only happens when you say "haff" for the ownership meaning. So, "I haff two dogs" sounds German. But "I haff to go" sounds normal. Maybe there's something Germanic in the sense of obligation that makes it not sound Germanic when "haff" is used to express obligation.
Professor:
"Compare how you'd say He has to go and He has two GoPro cameras. I think the native speaker says 'hass' to mean 'must' but 'hazz' to refer to ownership."
Might be a regionalism. I don't hear any difference at all in my own (native) speech, whereas I agree with you on "have."
George Grady: Nice one!
Isn't the "must have" variation always followed by a short pause, and the emphatic "totally"?
Post a Comment