Is that slang or casual language?

Question

Hi,I have some questions as to whether you would consider the pronunciations below just casual language or already slang.1) T + Y = CHCan't you do it? (Canchoo do it?)Don't you like it? (Donchoo like it?)Aren't you ...? (Arnchoo ...?)Got you. (Gotcha.)2) Omitting certain letters/words or other word reductionsGet them = Get 'em.Let me know as soon as possible. = Lemme know as soon as possible. Give me that. = Gimme that.How do you know? = How d'you know?I don't know. = I dunno.How's it going? = How's it goin'?I'm going to ... = I'm gonna ...I want to ... = I wanna ...salt and pepper = salt 'n' pepperLet's get out of here. = Let's get outta here.Did you eat? = Jeet?No, did you? = No, joo?3) Pronouncing you (yoo) as (ya)Example: Would you (ya) do that for me?Can you tell me whether you think the pronunciations above are just casual language or already slang? When would you consider them appropriate and when not?Regards,Paul

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]I have some questions as to whether you would consider the pronunciations below just casual language or already slang. 1) ... do it? (Canchoo do it?) Don't you like it? (Donchoo like it?) Aren't you ...? (Arnchoo ...?) Got you. (Gotcha.)[/nq]
1. Everyone nowadays distinguishes betweenwritten English and spoken English. This is not
just because pronunciation varies but some
details of acceptable grammar vary as well.
2. If you need a word to describe attempts totranscribe speech so as to suggest how it
sounds, "vernacular" may fit the task. It is
not slang and "casual language" is not a
generally-recognized category. After all,
vernacular is merely a fancy label for
spoken.

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Hi, I have some questions as to whether you would consider the pronunciations below just casual language or already slang. ... pronunciations above are just casual language or already slang? When would you consider them appropriate and when not? Regards, Paul[/nq]
I'd call it lazy. I think that 'gonna' is common, but won't and shouldn't make it to the printed language. All of the examples above are a reminder of my childhood, when by 10 or so I realized that the speech affectation above wouldn't cut it in school and the proper english taught in school wouldn't work in the neighborhood.

From Woody Allen's 'Annie Hall';
You know, I was having lunch with some guys from NBC, so I said...uh, "Did you eat yet or what?" and Tom Christie said, "No, didchoo?" Not, did you, didchoo eat? Jew? No, not did you eat, but jew est? Jew. You get it? Jew eat?
JOE

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Hi, I have some questions as to whether you would consider the pronunciations below just casual language or already slang.[/nq]
I would call them, in 1, 2, and 3, casual pronunciations. I consider the language used to be the same as what you have first on each line, only the pronunciation to be different.
[nq:1]1) T + Y = CH Can't you do it? (Canchoo do it?) Don't you like it? (Donchoo like it?) Aren't you ...? (Arnchoo ...?) Got you. (Gotcha.)[/nq]
This one only is casual pronunciation, and probably slang now. Because "gotcha" is used as a word in its own right. Can't think of good examples, but maybe "It was a gotcha moment" or "He likes to do gotchas.".
[nq:1]2) Omitting certain letters/words or other word reductions Get them = Get 'em. Let me know as soon as possible. ... No, did you? = No, joo? 3) Pronouncing you (yoo) as (ya) Example: Would you (ya) do that for me?[/nq]
I wouldn't call people lazy for talking like this, because in the vast majority of America, that's the way the vast majority talk. If one talked much more distinctly, we'd think the guy was English or went to prep school. (This is not to say those two groups consistently talk distinctly. I have no idea.)
[nq:1]Can you tell me whether you think the pronunciations above are just casual language or already slang? When would you consider them appropriate and when not?[/nq]
Clear, distinct pronunciation is appropriate in court or for any formal talk. Casual is appropriate among friends of if you are a rich man running for office and want to sucker middle class folk into voting for you.
[nq:1]Regards, Paul[/nq]
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
now in Baltimore 20 years

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Hi, I have some questions as to whether you would consider the pronunciations below just casual language or already slang. ... do it? (Canchoo do it?) Don't you like it? (Donchoo like it?) Aren't you ...? (Arnchoo ...?) Got you. (Gotcha.)[/nq]
This is sandhi, very prestigious in Sanskrit (whence comes the name for it), but rather disparaged in English. Nevertheless, it's extremely usual. Sandhi is the combining of sounds at word boundaries so that the ending sound of one word is combined with the beginning sound of the following word to form a single new sound. In Sanskrit it is obligatory, in English it is optional, though usual, especially in casual speech.
[nq:1]2) Omitting certain letters/words or other word reductions Get them = Get 'em.[/nq]
This is a survival of the Old English word for "them", which was "hem". The /h/ is dropped, as is usual for unstressed words beginning with /h/.
[nq:1]Let me know as soon as possible. = Lemme know as soon as possible. Give me that. = Gimme that. How do you know? = How d'you know?[/nq]
This is "how'd you know" and is simply a contraction like "didn't", etc. , on the other hand, is sandhi applied to the contraction .
[nq:1]I don't know. = I dunno. How's it going? = How's it goin'?[/nq]
This is not the omission of a "letter" (really a sound, there are no 'letters' in speech), but a different sound. represents one single sound, not an /n/ plus a /g/, but a sound different from either of these, symbolized by /N/. In some dialects the /In/ () version is more
prestigious than the /IN/ () version.
[nq:1]I'm going to ... = I'm gonna ... I want to ... = I wanna ... salt and pepper = salt 'n' pepper Let's get out of here. = Let's get outta here. Did you eat? = Jeet? No, did you? = No, joo?[/nq]
These are all further examples of sandhi. The first follows very strict rules according to the syntax of the sentence. "I'm gonna" is always a sandhi of with the marking a following infinitive. That is "I'm going to see> can become , but "I'm going to the sea> cannot become .
[nq:1]3) Pronouncing you (yoo) as (ya) Example: Would you (ya) do that for me?[/nq]
Merely the reduction of an unstressed vowel to a schwa, usual for English. It's only the fact that the word "you" is stressed often enough that leads to the spelling "ya" when it's unstressed. You don't find mandatory schwas that are always unstressed spelled differently from the standard spelling: "electricity" is never represented as
, "individual" doesn't become , and so on.
[nq:1]Can you tell me whether you think the pronunciations above are just casual language or already slang?[/nq]
None of these is slang. Slang is not in the same category as casual language. Your question is like asking whether these things are just red or already circular. Casual language may incorporate slang, just as something that is red may be circular, but there's no progression from being red to being circular, just as there's no progression from casual language to slang.
When would you consider them
[nq:1]appropriate and when not?[/nq]
That's hard to answer.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I have some questions as to whether you would consider the pronunciations below just casual language or already slang.[/nq]
[nq:1]... 1. Everyone nowadays distinguishes between written English and spoken English.[/nq]
I know. The examples I brought up are the ones where I wasn't sure about what category to put them into. Of course, it would definitely sound strange to pronounce each and every word in a spoken sentence exactly the way the word is pronounced on its own.
[nq:1]This is not just because pronunciation varies but some details of acceptable grammar vary as well.[/nq]
Like for example "I'm doing good.".
[nq:1]2. If you need a word to describe attempts to transcribe speech so as to suggest how it sounds, "vernacular" ... not slang and "casual language" is not a generally-recognized category. After all, vernacular is merely a fancy label for spoken.[/nq]
OK. I didn't know that term, so in a lack of a better one I used "casual language".
Paul

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I wouldn't call people lazy for talking like this, because in the vast majority of America, that's the way the vast majority talk.[/nq]
Ok, then I want to talk like this. I want to sound like the majority of Americans, ...
[nq:1]If one talked much more distinctly, we'd think the guy was English or went to prep school.[/nq]
... and NOT like that (s.a.).
[nq:1]Clear, distinct pronunciation is appropriate in court ...[/nq]
Never been there and probably or hopefully will never be there.
[nq:1]... or for any formal talk.[/nq]
This is much more relevant to me because I do have to give formal talks such as presentations about my scientific research I have been doing.
[nq:1]Casual is appropriate among friends ...[/nq]
Ok.
[nq:1]... or if you are a rich man running for office and want to sucker middle class folk into voting for you.[/nq]
Good point. ;-)
Paul

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I wouldn't call people lazy for talking like this, because in the vast majority of America, that's the way the vast majority talk.[/nq]
Ok, then I want to talk like this. I want to sound like the majority of Americans, ...
[nq:1]If one talked much more distinctly, we'd think the guy was English or went to prep school.[/nq]
... and NOT like that (s.a.).
[nq:1]Clear, distinct pronunciation is appropriate in court ...[/nq]
Never been there and probably or hopefully will never be there.
[nq:1]... or for any formal talk.[/nq]
This is much more relevant to me because I do have to give formal talks such as presentations about my scientific research I have been doing.
[nq:1]Casual is appropriate among friends ...[/nq]
Ok.
[nq:1]... or if you are a rich man running for office and want to sucker middle class folk into voting for you.[/nq]
Good point. ;-)
Paul

Usenet · Answer

~~snip~~
[nq:2]How do you know? = How d'you know?[/nq]
[nq:1]This is "how'd you know" and is simply a contraction like "didn't", etc.[/nq]
Surely not: the contraction is of "do you", not of "how do".

The apostrophe marks the omission of the "o" in "do" not of some unknown letter between "how" and "do" and it should thus be transcribed as "how d'you".

Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Hi, I have some questions as to whether you would consider the pronunciations below just casual language or already slang. ... think the pronunciations above are just casual language or already slang? When would you consider them appropriate and when not?[/nq]
All three are perfectly standard. I can't attest that they occur in all accents, but where they occur they are the usual forms in non-self-conscious speech.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]On 15 Oct 2004, Carmen L. Abruzzi wrote[/nq]
[nq:1]~~snip~~[/nq]
[nq:2]This is "how'd you know" and is simply a contraction like "didn't", etc.[/nq]
[nq:1]Surely not: the contraction is of "do you", not of "how do". The apostrophe marks the omission of the "o" in "do" not of some unknown letter between "how" and "do" and it should thus be transcribed as "how d'you".[/nq]
I agree; "how'd" represents a contraction in which the beginning of "would" or "did" has been elided cf. "how're", "how'll", & "how's".

Odysseus

Is that slang or casual language?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions