posted
I heard this usage on Seinfeld once but was very surprised to spot it in OSCs Rhino column this week. I'm not getting freaked out as a grammar Nazi, I'm just wondering who uses this. Is it a regional/cultural thing? It seems to be an idiom with an adverbial implication. So we aren't just saying something is different. It is completely different. A friend of mine asked me about it, as a linguist, several years ago.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the proper usage was "whole other" but became "whole nother" because that's easier to say because of the ending-starting verbs... the same way the french make what would be "je ai" into "J'ai", except we just put in a constanant.
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it suggests "Whole-another". Not that anyone has used this as a well-formed English expression.
I guess that "other", like all English words that start with vowels, actually has a glottal stop before the vowel. Perhaps it is easier to access the N than the glottal stop. (L and N use the tongue in similar spots) O may have properties that encourage a forward sound. I'm recalling the phrase "One way or 'tother".
Still, is it strictly a phonological change (to ease pronunciation) or is there a meaning difference? Or do we think there must be a meaning difference to justify the sound difference? I'm trying to think of an example of that. I guess the difference between "Trekkies" and "Trekkers"
posted
I'd say that it appears that whole is acting as an infix (which is somewhat rare in English). I can see the change happening for a couple reasons:
1. You want to say something like "That's another thing," and your brains reaches for the word another first. Then it tacks on the adjective whole. In doing so, you don't totally break down the word another, because, for some reason, it doesn't feel like an + other. Somehow, it's easier to just break off the a. 2. Then there's the whole phonological thing. This one makes a lot of sense, because it really is easier to say than "whole other." I think it's just a matter of having two consecutive sounds produced on the alveolar ridge. The o in other is actually an open-mid back vowel, so I don't think it encourages a forward sound. Of course, I haven't taken my course in phonology yet, so this is all coming from an introduction to language class.
There doesn't seem to be a difference in meaning. It's just highly colloquial and should be edited out of everything but colloquial writing. Merriam-Webster says the word nother dates back to 1909. It doesn't seem to be a simple regional thing.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The instances of pee on my plate have been, and I hope to remain, Zero.
Thanks for the pointer on the location of O, Jon. Are you the same Jon that beat me out for member # 5000?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You want to say something like "That's another thing," and your brains reaches for the word another first. Then it tacks on the adjective whole. In doing so, you don't totally break down the word another, because, for some reason, it doesn't feel like an + other. Somehow, it's easier to just break off the a.
Of course, I wouldn't dare criticize the English Master. But personally, I wouldn't be saying something like, "That's whole nother thing." If by "break off the a" you meant, put "whole" between "a" and "nother", then I completely apologise. On my knees! Lol.
Posts: 1111 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But personally, I wouldn't be saying something like, "That's whole nother thing." If by "break off the a" you meant, put "whole" between "a" and "nother", then I completely apologise. On my knees! Lol.
