Hello everyone,
I'm not sure how to pronounce the 'as' in 'as to' and 'as for'.
Should its pronunciation be strong, that is, should it be /æz/, or should it be weak, that is, /əz/.
And, as to the 'to' and 'for' in 'as to' and 'as for', respectively, should their pronunciation be weak, or strong?
I suppose there are four options altogether -- at least from the purely mathematical point of view:
a. strong - strong
/ˈæz ˈtuː/
/ˈæz ˈfɔː(r)/
(seems unlikely in natural contexts)
b. strong - weak
/ˈæz tə/
/ˈæz fə(r)/
(the longer I'm thinking about it, the more natural it's getting; I've completely lost any sense of normality by now)
c. weak - strong
/əzˈtuː/
/əzˈfɔː(r)/
(would be a stress pattern similar to 'without' or 'within')
d. weak - weak
/əztə/
/əzfə(r)/
(would be a pattern similar to preposition + article in non-emphatic contexts)
I realize their pronunciation may largely depend on the context, but as I'm not a native speaker, I tend to be influenced by patterns observed in other languages, including my mother tongue.
Many thanks for any comments!
P.
I'm not sure how to pronounce the 'as' in 'as to' and 'as for'.
Should its pronunciation be strong, that is, should it be /æz/, or should it be weak, that is, /əz/.
And, as to the 'to' and 'for' in 'as to' and 'as for', respectively, should their pronunciation be weak, or strong?
I suppose there are four options altogether -- at least from the purely mathematical point of view:
a. strong - strong
/ˈæz ˈtuː/
/ˈæz ˈfɔː(r)/
(seems unlikely in natural contexts)
b. strong - weak
/ˈæz tə/
/ˈæz fə(r)/
(the longer I'm thinking about it, the more natural it's getting; I've completely lost any sense of normality by now)
c. weak - strong
/əzˈtuː/
/əzˈfɔː(r)/
(would be a stress pattern similar to 'without' or 'within')
d. weak - weak
/əztə/
/əzfə(r)/
(would be a pattern similar to preposition + article in non-emphatic contexts)
I realize their pronunciation may largely depend on the context, but as I'm not a native speaker, I tend to be influenced by patterns observed in other languages, including my mother tongue.
Many thanks for any comments!
P.
petusek'as to' and 'as for'.[ˈæz ˌtu] [ˈæz ˌfɔr]
"as" takes the primary stress. "to" (or "for") takes a secondary stress.
In faster speech [ u] may be reduced to [ʊ].
CJ
Comments
Since I didn't expect the strong-strong option to be the right one, I didn't bother to differentiate between primary and secondary stress. Thank you for this additional information.
I wonder, however, whether this is the same in all varieties of English (especially British and Australian), and whether the vowels in <to>/<for> are ever reduced to a mere [ə]. In other words, I wonder whether there is variation similar to that in the -man compounds/derivatives (see e.g. Man: reduced or not? by Mark Liberman), and whether as to or as for might be on their way to become compounds or even quasi-derivatives.
Once again, thank you for your comments!
CJ
You see, I've always been interested in historical developments and to what extent we might be able to spot glimpses of them in what appears to be current variation. The way I see it, the higher the variation, the higher the likelihood of innovation.
Anyway, thanks once more!