By Centaurus

2015-12-25 22:46:37 8 Comments

In linguistics, is there a term describing this phenomenon, i.e., when the syllables of two words are slurred together in the spoken language? They are not contractions. While contractions are acceptable in any register, this combination of words is very informal and hardly ever found in formal writing.

kinda (kind of)

sorta (sort of)

coulda (could have)

shoulda (should have)

lotta (lot of)

oughta (ought to)

betcha (bet you)

lemme (let me)

tseasy (it's easy)

willya (will you)

Inasmuch as English Language speakers (just like the speakers of any natural language) have a tendency to join word sounds in speech, examples abound and a complete list would be hard to produce .

I’m looking for a word or phrase describing this linguistic phenomenon as it occurs in speech.


@Araucaria - Not here any more. 2015-12-27 21:09:18

In the spoken language, these examples are strings of words where the realisation of the strings in speech is quite different from the citation forms of the individual words. A citation form is the phonetic form of the word when we mention the word without using it in its normal sense. So for example we might say:

  • This is the word "can".

Here the item can isn't being used in the same way that it is when we say She can dance for example. The citation forms of function words (the kind of words that concern grammar more than vocabulary) often differ from the forms we hear in normal speech. One reason for this is that they are stressed when we cite them and often aren't when we actually use them.

So in the first example, for instance, we see kinda which is an orthographic rendering of the string /kaɪnd ə/. Here you will notice that the word of is represented by /ə/ and not by /ɒv/, the citation form of the word. In the example betcha we see that /j/, the sound represented in writing by the letter Y appears to have changed into a /tʃ/ so that we have the form /betʃə/ instead of /bet ju:/. The string /bet ju:/ is what we would expect if we added the citation forms of bet and you together.

The orthographic items in the Original Question illustrate two aspects of English phonetics and phonology. The first is the occurrence of WEAK FORMS in the language. The second is the existence of FAST SPEECH RULES or CONNECTED SPEECH PROCESSES, also sometimes referred to as PHONOSTYLISTIC RULES.

Weak forms

English is a 'stress-timed' language. What this means is that the syllables in English utterances do not come at regular intervals in the way that they do in Japanese for example, or in Spanish. Instead English utterances give the impression that the stressed syllables come at regular intervals. In actual fact this is not strictly what's happening, in the sense that although they give this impression, the stressed syllables do not occur at strictly regular intervals at all.

The effect of this is that words that don't carry stress in English are much less prominent than stressed ones. Now, all the material coming in between the stressed syllables of English utterances needs to be said more rapidly so that the stressed syllables don't get pushed apart. We don't want to spoil the stress-timed effect. One of the mechanisms that English has for achieving this is that finicky grammar words - auxiliary verbs, pronouns, prepositions, infinitival-to and so forth - tend to have two forms. They have a so-called strong form when they are stressed. This is the same as the citation form. And they also have a weak form, one with a reduced vowel, normally a schwa, /ə/, that we use when they aren't stressed (strictly speaking, there may be several weak forms of a single word). So the citation form of can, for example, is /kæn/ and the weak form is /kn/ or /kən/. The weak form of to is /tə/.

The realisation of the weak forms of these words can be subject to complex rules and depend, for example, on whether an item is utterance initial or not. So, to illustrate, the weak form of the word he in Southern Standard British English is /hi/ when utterance initial and /i/ when not. In slow careful speech, the weak form of of in English is /əv/. However, in rapid or relaxed speech it may be realised by either /v/ or /ə/. So the string man of may be realised as:

  • /mæn əv/
  • /mæn v/
  • /mæn ə/

Interestingly, the weak forms of the auxiliary verb have may be realised in the same ways when not sentence initial. So weak have and of are often homophonous in English (hence people's occasionally writing could of been there instead of could have been there and so forth).

So in rapid speech the strings kind of, sort of, lot of may all occur with the word of represented just by a schwa, giving us: /kaɪnd ə/, /sɔ:t ə/ or /lɒt ə/. The strings could have and should have may be similarly be realised as /kʊd ə/ or /ʃʊd ə/

Is there a name for such strings relating to spoken English? I don't think so (of course an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, there might be one that I haven't come across). The reason is that they are all just examples of a word followed by a weak form of another word. They are two-word strings. Their unifying feature is the occurrence of weak forms, in particular those found in rapid or relaxed speech.

Connected speech rules

Connected speech rules often concern the elision, assimilation and coalescence of sounds when words are used in actual utterances. These are often dependent on the environment in which these sounds occur.

One example of such a transformation is what's known as COALESCENT ASSIMILATION. The adjustments we make to be able to pass smoothly from one sound to another sometimes result in a third different sound taking the place of the two original sounds. This happens very often in English when some consonant is followed by a /j/, the sound at the beginning of the word yoyo. It is often referred to as YOD COALESCENCE. Relevant to us right now is the fact that a sequence of /t/ and /j/ often results in a new sound /tʃ/ (the first sound in the word chair) which replaces the original two segments. So the sequence last year may be realised as /la:stʃɪə/, "las cheer". [SSBE transcription]

In rapid speech the sequence bet you is likely to be realised as /betʃə/ (or /betʃu/) where the /t/ from bet and the /j/ from you are subject to coalescent assimilation. The weak form of the word you is often realised as /jə/. The string /betʃə/ therefore involves both a weak form and coalescent assimilation.

The orthographic items oughta and lemme can also be analysed using connected speech processes in conjunction with weak forms. To cut a long story short, with regard to oughta, for example, the weak form of to is /tə/. Along with a process of degemination (the reduction of a cluster of two identical consonants into a single length consonant), this gives us the form /ɔ:tə/.

So what then?

It seems that the orthographic items listed in the original question have something in common, which is that they exhibit features of English seen in connected speech, and to varying degrees more often in relaxed or rapid speech. The realisations of the orthographic items oughta, betcha and lemme display the feature of two words sharing a single phoneme. The /t/ in oughta belongs both to the word ought and the word to. The same also goes for the /tʃ/ in betcha and arguably the /m/ in lemme. There may well be a word for pairs of words that share a consonant like this (it isn't quite the same thing as liaison). Unfortunately, I don't know it. However, this phenomenon doesn't seem to be something special to do with these items in particular. It's happening for different reasons in each case in our examples.

In terms of speech these three examples don't seem to share all that much with the examples with have or of. The latter just seem to be sequences of two words, despite the orthography.

One thing we might say is that in careful, slow speech some of these sequences will not be a feature of many speakers of Southern Standard British English or General American, even if they do occur in their rapid speech, or relaxed speech. They could therefore be umbrellaed under what has been described (and referred to here in another answer) as relaxed pronunciation.

Here is the Wikipedia introduction to relaxed pronunciation:

Relaxed pronunciation (also called condensed pronunciation or word slurs) is a phenomenon that happens when the syllables of common words are slurred together. It is almost always present in normal speech, in all natural languages but not in some constructed languages, such as Loglan or Lojban, which are designed so that all words are parsable.

Some shortened forms of words and phrases, such as contractions or weak forms can be considered to derive from relaxed pronunciations, but a phrase with a relaxed pronunciation is not the same as a contraction. In English, where contractions are common, they are considered part of the standard language and accordingly used in many contexts (except on very formal speech or in formal/legal writing); however, relaxed pronunciation is markedly informal in register. This is also sometimes reflected in writing: contractions have a standard written form, but relaxed pronunciations may not, outside of eye dialect.

I am not personally familiar with relaxed pronunciation as a technical term. And I don't vouch for Wikipedia as a source. However, some of the editors and commentators on that specific Wikipedia page are professional phoneticians. In particular Peter Roach, Emeritus Professor of Phonetics at the University of Reading, and author of English Phonetics and Phonology has commented on the page offering constructive criticism. I therefore suggest that these are all examples of RELAXED PRONUNCIATION. As the Original Poster points out, in term of speech as opposed to orthography, they aren't contractions.

@ermanen 2015-12-28 17:35:20

TL;DR: They are examples of relaxed pronunciation.

@Peter Olson 2015-12-29 08:58:50

Sometimes contractions/weak forms can become slightly divorced from the original form and appear in contexts where it doesn't seem likely that they are a phonological reduction of some underlying string. For example, "you betcha" is a common phrase but "you bet you" sounds nonsensical. Similarly, "Don't you like it?" sounds natural but "Do not you like it?" sounds ungrammatical or perhaps archaic.

@Elian 2015-12-26 09:41:30

In light of Auracaria's and your comments below, consider calling these linguistic reductions.

Linguistic reductions are lost sounds in words. This happens in spoken English. For instance, "going to" changes to "gonna". The most widely known reductions are contractions. Most contractions are reductions of 'not'. For instance, "cannot" becomes "can't". Many contractions are reductions between a subject and a verb. For instance, "He is..." becomes "He's..."

Some reductions are well known to language learners; for instance the reduction of a verb and "to". Examples are "going to" becoming "gonna" and "want to" becoming "wanna".

Linguistic reductions are part of natural English. They cannot be considered slang, or improper.


Gonna, gotta and wanna are not contractions.

Contractions are shortenings like aren’t and can’t. The missing letters have been replaced by an apostrophe, and the original words are discernible in the contraction.

Contractions are acceptable in all but the most formal writing. Here are a few standard contractions:

aren’t = are not [...]

The spellings gonna, gotta, and wanna, on the other hand, do not preserve the shape of the words they represent. They are not contractions, but reductions.

A linguistic reduction is the result of relaxed pronunciation. All speakers of all languages slur sounds and words together. Doing so is a normal part of spoken language. The more informal the situation, the more slurring goes on.


@Araucaria - Not here any more. 2015-12-26 12:21:47

These aren't contractions they are just weak forms of the word of or have used in fast speech, or they are examples of assimilation or coalescent assimilation. They don't result in the loss of a syllable or in a single constituent of a phrase. The only thing that's odd about them is the orthography.

@J.R. 2015-12-26 17:50:08

@Araucaria - This answer specifies informal contractions, which is differentiated from dictionary-recognized contractions at the link provided. It's good reading. Moreover, NOAD defines contraction as "a word or group of words resulting from shortening an original form." Given that broad definition, I think it's hard to contend that "these aren't contractions."

@Centaurus 2015-12-27 01:03:30

The very link you provided states that these are not contractions.

@Centaurus 2015-12-27 01:07:23

@Araucaria and Elian - My question is about a term for this phenomenon in the spoken language.

@The Nate 2015-12-25 23:31:21

Short answer:It's a contraction.

These are modified in pronunciation beyond the more normal form's simple truncation, but they are the same thing, fundamentally.

Essentially, it's a form of contraction that has been informally promoted to a word.

(yes, that's a neologism as mentioned in the comments)


Oxford calls it contraction.

Definition of kinda in English: contraction

They also define the term as follows:

1.3The process of shortening a word by combination or elision.

Then there was this:

A contraction is a word that is formed by combining two or more words which often occur together in speech. In the process of this combining, one or more segments (i.e. vowels and/or consonants) of the component words are phonetically altered, reduced, or omitted entirely...

Informal contractions (not in most dictionaries) Beyond the recognized contractions that are acceptable in writing, there are a number of informal contractions, such as going to → gonna, want to → wanna, should have → shoulda, have to → hafta, kind of → kinda, sort of → sorta.

@Araucaria - Not here any more. 2015-12-26 12:08:12

These aren't contractions they are just weak forms of the word of or have used in fast speech, or they are examples of assimilation or coalescent assimilation. They don't result in the loss of a syllable or in a single constituent of a phrase. The only thing that's odd about them is the orthography.

@The Nate 2015-12-26 17:31:37

"They're" is pronounced as two syllables or one, depending on dialect, but I understand it to be a contraction in either case. I don't think that removal of entire syllables is definitional. (Feel free to toss out a reference if that's wrong.)

@J.R. 2015-12-26 17:57:34

@Araucaria - Some sources would call that a contraction. From Wikipedia: Some other simplified pronunciations of common word groups, which can equally be described as cases of elision, may also be considered (non-standard) contractions (not enshrined into the written standard language, but frequently expressed in written form anyway), such as wanna for want to, gonna for going to ... and others common in colloquial speech.

@Araucaria - Not here any more. 2015-12-26 18:45:10

@J.R. Sorry, J.R. That doesn't follow. Not a very well-written bit of Wiki, although in this case, surprisingly, not entirely wrong ;) There are reasons to think that hafta or gonna for example are single words. That's what the Wiki's talking about [ - unless it's entirely wrong]. However, that does not mean that every weak form of a preposition or auxiliary verb is a "contraction". Similarly, some women are presidents. This does not mean that all women are presidents.

@Araucaria - Not here any more. 2015-12-26 18:47:57

@J.R. Even with that analysis while a few people would accept that hafta is a single unit, this isn't a majority view.

@J.R. 2015-12-26 18:57:03

@Araucaria - I don't want to debate this too lengthily; the Wiki post was just convenient vexample. A few more: Lobeck & Denham label hafta as a "phonological contraction"; WInkler differentiates between contractions that are "both official (like isn't) and unofficial (like hafta)"; Payne & Payne say that words like gonna are "common but phonologically idiosyncratic contractions." Anyhow, I never claimed you were in the minority, I just thought your initial comment ("These aren't contractions") was a bit strong and merited a counter opinion, but I wouldn't wanna be dogmatic either way.

@Araucaria - Not here any more. 2015-12-26 19:21:25

@J.R. I never said that I didn't agree that hafta is a contraction. I don't understand why you think I did? My point is that there are REASONS to consider hafta a contraction - as is clear from my comment. However there is NO reason to think that lemme or sorta are contractions. Similarly, some women are presidents. However, this doesn't mean that women are presidents. There is no reason to think that any of the examples here are contractions - except perhaps for oughta as an edge case.

@Araucaria - Not here any more. 2015-12-26 19:22:56

@J.R. And oughta is an extremely edge case! I'm not after a long discusssion (though I don't mind chatting should the feeling take you!). But it is my duty to point this out in the interests of readers here. This highly upvoted answer is incorrect. :(

@J.R. 2015-12-26 19:30:37

@Araucaria - I hafta say, I'm glad I spoke up, because now I see what 'twas you were driving at – the only thing we disagree on now is how "clear" your original comment was ;^). I'd kinda sorta put hafta and gonna in the same category as coulda and woulda – you betcha I woulda! But you think I oughta not lump all those words 'neath the same umbrella. I think I getcha now.

@Steve Jessop 2015-12-26 22:31:47

@Araucaria: speaking as a lay reader, the reason I expected that you would think that "hafta" is not a contraction, is that in your initial comment you said "They don't result in the loss of a syllable or in a single constituent of a phrase". A property they share with "hafta", and your highlight of that property resulted in me thinking that it was (in your view) incompatible with being a contraction. It turns out that's not what you meant but I suffered the same misunderstanding as J.R.

@Araucaria - Not here any more. 2015-12-27 00:03:30

@SteveJessop My first comment wasn't about hafta though! My comment about hafta followed JR's! My initial comment was about things that have nothing in common with contractions. JR brought up a fringe Wiki comment about freak edge cases which made it sound like the OQ's examples were contractions. So my next comment was about the fringe cases brought up by Wiki ... But I do get your point though :)

@Mazura 2015-12-27 00:25:29

There's a word for words "informally promoted to a word": neologisms, but I think that time has passed. Now they're just words.

@Steve Jessop 2015-12-27 01:29:49

If this answer is misusing the term "contraction", then I think the only way to combat that is to provide a clear explanation of the proper meaning of that term. Merely asserting that the term applies to "hafta" but not (or only marginally) to "oughtta" isn't getting the job done of convincing people to use it in whatever technical sense Araucaria wants.

@Araucaria - Not here any more. 2015-12-27 11:10:45

@SteveJessop Well, the problem is that the words have and of have a weak form ə(v) just like hundreds of other function words. E.g., the weak form of can is /kn̩/ or /kən/, the weak for of been is /bɪn/, the weak form of to is /tə/. Merely putting one word after another does not constitute a contraction. So saying should and then ə or əv is just saying two words in a row. The case about hafta is a red herring. It's like discussing whether a platypus is a mammal. If we do in fact decide that a platypus is a mammal, it does not make every animal that lays eggs a mammal.

@Araucaria - Not here any more. 2015-12-27 11:15:48

@SteveJessop And when we started the discussion of mammals and reptiles there were no platypuses in sight! ;-)

@Centaurus 2015-12-27 20:59:05

As they occur, in the spoken language, they are not contractions.

@J.R. 2015-12-27 21:17:39

@Centaurus - Not to beat a dead horse here, but it really depends on how you define a contraction. The citation here says: "A contraction is a word that is formed by combining two or more words which often occur together in speech."

@Centaurus 2015-12-27 21:33:24

@J.R. imho, there is a difference. Whereas a contraction is acceptable in writing, words like "lemme", " 'safternoon", "tseasy", "willya", "acoupla", "alotta" are not, unless a writer is trying to represent someone's speech graphically. That's what I have read anyway.

@J.R. 2015-12-27 21:50:29

@Centaurus - Just to be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that I don't think the dividing lines are clearly drawn, and it depends on which sources you cite. But kudos for writing such an interesting question. :^)

@J.R. 2015-12-27 11:24:17

I wasn't gonna enter this fray, but I've decided to do some digging.

First of all, what's a contraction? There are plenty of definitions out there, and, taken as a whole, they leave much wiggle room.

I don't know how authoritative this is, but I liked the way contractions were described in a link found in an earlier answer:

A contraction is a word that is formed by combining two or more words which often occur together in speech. In the process of this combining, one or more segments (i.e. vowels and/or consonants) of the component words are phonetically altered, reduced, or omitted entirely.

It goes on to divide contractions into two families:

  • Dictionary-recognized contractions, which are "well established and are included in dictionaries, such as do not → don't, I am → I'm, it is → it's, we would → we'd."

  • Informal contractions, which are "not in most dictionaries," and "beyond the recognized contractions that are acceptable in writing ... such as going to → gonna, want to → wanna, should have → shoulda, have to → hafta, kind of → kinda, sort of → sorta.

Put that way, I have no problem labeling these as informal contractions. However, one ELUer went so far to say that this categorization was "horribly wrong ... and will therefore misinform thousands of readers in the future." (That sounds a bit melodramatic to me, but that's what the comment says.)

Up in the comments to the original question, the what's-a-contraction conflagration continued:

betcha is not at all a contraction for "bet you". The form has become kind of a snowclone (or whatever the ... best term is). We now GENERATE words "in this style", such as lotsa and so on. – Joe Blow

@Joe Blow Betcha it is. Sometimes, at least. – Euan M

So, I looked up the troublesome betcha on OneLook, and followed the links. A couple dictionaries indeed labeled this a contraction, while others carefully danced around the contraction label, using terms like informal, eye dialect, slang, and spoken. Although it doesn't get its own listing in the OED, it does get a mention there as a "corrupt" form of bet you.

For what it's worth, OED does list shoulda (as "repr. colloq. or vulgar pronunc. of should have") while hafta also gets its own entry (and is labeled with "Representing a colloquial or regional pronunciation of have to"). The OED lists coulda as a "colloq. shortening of (I) could have."

None of those OED entries mention the c-word (contraction); shoulda and hafta get dissected in the OED as one being vulgar, and one being regional. The overlaps between terms like "informal" and "vulgar" were discussed in this ELU question ("informal" > "colloquial" > "slang" > "vulgar"), but the term regional only gets mentioned in a couple comments there, one of which says:

I believe "colloquial" has connotations of "provincial" or "regional", i.e. informal language which is peculiar to a certain geographical area.

But the other reads:

A colloquialism is not regional but conversational, typically with an informal context.

Back to the original question:

In linguistics, is there a term describing this phenomenon, i.e., when the syllables of two words are slurred together in the spoken language? They are not contractions.

I don't think there is a term describing this, but I think there are several that can be used. Lemme list a dozen:

  • informal contractions1
  • colloquialisms2
  • eye dialect3 (when this slurred-together speech is converted to written form)
  • a contracted form that is not acceptable in standard use4
  • informal English5
  • slang6
  • a short form7
  • written form of a reduction8
  • dialectal9
  • a verbal phrase representing casual pronunciation10
  • relaxed pronunciation11
  • vulgar pronunciation12

The scholarly merits of each of these terms could be debated individually, but, the fact is, all of these terms have been used to one extent or another to categorize words such as gonna, coulda, oughta, and lotta – you betcha they have.

@Burhan Khalid 2015-12-27 07:09:57

To me, these are colloquialisms:

A colloquialism is a word, phrase or other form used in informal language. Dictionaries often display colloquial words and phrases with the abbreviation colloq. as an identifier.

@Fattie 2015-12-27 00:20:28

Purely for the record, many would simply consider these


(surprisingly the word "slang" hasn't been mentioned at all here so I thought I'd put it in FTR.)

{Unfortunately the various online slang dictionaries are of low quality, so it's pointless asserting that "these appear in slang dictionaries."}

As has been mentioned, they are mostly marked as simply "contraction informal" in most dictionaries.

It seems to me they indeed obviously started as contractions, but, they are far more than that. (I think dictionaries that simply mark them as "contraction" are being lazy.)

The origin seems to be very late 1800s, I bet, rather around the time the US was generating a lot of slang, such as "OK" and "you bet".

Note that "kinda" for example simply and literally is not a contraction of "kind of". "Kindohhh" or indeed "kindfff" or perhaps "ki'off" would be contractions of "kind of".

Indeed, one could easily argue that "kinda" and friends are precisely like the group where you stick an "ee" on the end of a word to make a "kiddie version" ("doggie," et cetera).

For me, the "ahh on the end" formula is another formation, very much like the "ee on the end" formation.

For me, the "ee on the end" formation (doggie, beddie, etc) implies a baby or child talk.

For me the "ahh on the end" formation implies a rather "easy-going" type of vibe (sort of a "1800s slacker" thing! indeed very much like "OK").

For example, when "-ahh" words like these are made-up today ("I work on Wall St .. I'm a banka, whoo!") the implication is a distinction from formality.

Indeed, come to think of it, I feel that the "a" ending thing from the 1980s ("gansta" etc) is the same phenomenon. (It's "deliberately uneducated sounding" with an angry edge, whereas the earlier "kinda" et cetera were in 1900 "deliberately uneducated sounding" with a relaxed edge.)

@Mazura 2015-12-27 00:28:27

Plus one, as the definition of slang basically appears in the question: "very informal and hardly ever found in formal writing".

@Fattie 2015-12-27 00:30:36

Quite right, I didn't think of that.

@J.R. 2015-12-27 00:38:15

I like you putting them in the slang category, but I'm not sure I can fully ascribe to the notion that kinda is "is not a contraction of kind of." NOAD lists kind of as an informal phrase meaning "rather; to some extent (often expressing vagueness) : it got kind of cozy." I agree that "kinda" would not be a contraction if I asked you, "What kinda ice cream do want?" but when I say, "I kinda get what you mean," I think that's a whole different animal.

@Fattie 2015-12-27 00:41:45

JR - here's an amazing fact I just realized. Indeed, 'kind of' is sometimes contracted, when you are speaking very quickly ..... to kindvv ...!!! I really feel "kinda" is a totally different word. "Do you like that guy?!" "Hmm, Kinda!" It has a whole meaning you know? In contrast she may reply (if additionally speaking very quickly) "I kindvv lykim". Just as "yes" and "yeah" are after all different words with different shades of meaning. Of course, opinions may differ.

@herisson 2015-12-27 07:36:45

"Kinda" just comes from "kind of" with the /v/ sound dropped. The "uh" sound at the end doesn't make it related to words like "gangsta" and "banka", any more than it's related to "comma" or "sigma." They end with the same sound--that's it. @J.R. How is it a whole different animal? It gives a different flavor to the speech, and may even indicate a different meaning through this, but it's always possible (at least for me) to replace "kinda" with "kind of" and get a grammatical sentence. "What kind of ice cream do you want?" "I kind of get what you mean," and "Hmm, kind of!" are all OK sentences.

@J.R. 2015-12-27 09:33:16

@sumelic - Maybe it's not a different animal. The answer here says, "Note that kinda simply and literally is not a contraction of kind of." (I don't know why it wouldn't be, but I was trying to give Joe the benefit of the doubt. So I offered an alternate theory: maybe sometimes it's "simply and literally not a contraction," and maybe sometimes it is a contraction, depending on how it's used.) Personally, I like what Nate said: hafta and coulda are "forms of contraction that have been informally promoted to a word," but you can read for yourself the hullabaloo over that postulate.

@Fattie 2015-12-28 15:07:19

Hi Sumelic, you say ""Kinda" just comes from "kind of" with the /v/ sound dropped", sure that's the origination of the term. (I don't know what "just" means in your sentence.) It's great to know the origination of a term. As far as I can research, these "-a" words were a fad around the late 1800s. I'm not sure which "-a" word was first, but my mid 1900s it was a "thing", you could humorously make other "-a" words, like "bitsa" and "lotsa". When you do that you're making a reference to the well-established (late 1800s) "-a" words such as kinda.

@Fattie 2015-12-28 15:09:07

When you say "The "uh" sound at the end doesn't make it related to words like "gangsta" and "banka"" you may be correct, or, wrong. In rap / hiphop slang, there is a distinct "-a" form (surely you agree?) If you feel that is a sheer coincidence, and unrelated to the earlier "kinda" group -- that would be difficult to really determine.

@Fattie 2015-12-28 15:12:38

Hi JR, by "literally not a contraction" I was just emphatically pointing out that it's, well, not a contraction ("kind'vv" or "kindaw'" are literally contractions of "kind of"): the common humorous (if that's the best term) substitution of "of" sounds for "ahh" sounds (bits of, bitsahh, kind of, kindahh, etc - as under discussion here) should surely be referred to as, well, a substitution, I suppose, rather than a contraction. Similarly the -ee on the end (dog, doggie etc) you wouldn't call a contraction.

@tchrist 2015-12-29 00:58:46

-1 for confusing slang with informal speech.

@ralph.m 2015-12-26 00:58:35

It can be described as a relaxed pronunciation type of elision.

@The Nate 2015-12-27 02:23:56

I actually voted this up, but I'm not completely convinced, given there's more transformation than reduction going on. It's clearly related and arguable, so I would like a touch more elaboration on the point, as well.

@StoneyB on hiatus 2015-12-25 23:18:55

They are eye-dialect spellings designed to make the ordinary way these phrases are spoken appear careless or substandard.

@Edwin Ashworth 2015-12-26 00:14:47

I don't believe John Lawler considers that (1) the pronunciations and (2) the written attempts to reproduce these are substandard.

@StoneyB on hiatus 2015-12-26 00:55:34

@EdwinAshworth I don't consider them so either; I use them frequently in my own communications. But most writers use them in contrast to the standard written forms not to indicate actual pronunciation but to suggest that actual pronunciation is substandard.

@Fattie 2015-12-26 23:58:40

Stoney - surely this is wrong dude. "the ordinary way these phrases are spoken" .. not so; people started specifically saying "kinda" as a slang word around (it appears) the late 1800s. When one says "kinda" today one is specifically saying "kinda!", you're not "quickly saying 'kind of'". I think.

@StoneyB on hiatus 2015-12-27 01:19:26

@JoeBlow Of was already being truncated in the 16th century: What kind o' man is he? -Twelfth Night,I,5

@Michael 2015-12-27 17:54:20

@JoeBlow It's kinda wrong...

@Stu W 2015-12-27 20:20:50

I don't like the contraction label either. Interesting discussion, though.

Related Questions

Sponsored Content

2 Answered Questions

1 Answered Questions

[SOLVED] Why are these spellings pronounced "non phonetically?"

3 Answered Questions

[SOLVED] What type of words are 'the, a, of' etc grouped as?

  • 2016-05-31 12:27:43
  • user2901512
  • 14395 View
  • 1 Score
  • 3 Answer
  • Tags:   linguistics

1 Answered Questions

[SOLVED] What are these containers called?

1 Answered Questions

[SOLVED] What are the degrees of synonymity?

2 Answered Questions

[SOLVED] What are some good books on articulation?

Sponsored Content