Post by Hen Hanna Post by Dingbat Post by Hen Hanna
Can ['d] instead of [ed] indicate a change in pronunciation?
Can [sweeten'd] indicate a weak (or silent) 2nd syllable?
<sweetn'd> would be an innovation to the typical reader. If you're
up to innovative spelling, and n is the syllabic nucleus, why not <sweetnd>?
Thank you. I'm trying to make the 2nd syllable of
[sweetened] weak or silent.
What *is* the second syllable?
It is "-(t)en-" in "sweeten", so "-ed" would come as a third one, no?
Only, this one is already usually silent after liquid consonants. It is
rather the former "-(t)en-" you want to show silent, isn't it?
So then: "sweet'ned". But this would make "-ed" look oddly voiced again,
so rather: "sweet'n'd"?
Post by Hen Hanna
Cf. "Mountain" with th' swallow'd (?) 2nd syllable
If we'd use apostrophe for the glottal stop, and drop silent characters
altogether, I'm sure a more correct phonetic rendering would be
"swee'nd" and "moun'n".
Compare swallowing endings in German:
überwinden ~ überwin'n
bersten ~ bers'n
In the absence of glottal stop, liquids may come to be "glued", but
without loss of distinguishing the syllables:
kommen ~ kom-n
bellen ~ bel-n
kennen ~ ken-n.
Same in some Flemish dialects, that would distinguish
schoen (shoe; an ancient plural itself), and
schoenen ~ schoen-n (shoes; in standard speech ~ schoene(n)).