Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: "I have it" vs "I have to"
Message-ID: <379@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Apr-85 19:32:53 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.379
Posted: Tue Apr  2 19:32:53 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Apr-85 08:02:30 EST
References: <140@ubvax.UUCP> <136@mit-athena.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 25
Summary: 

In article <136@mit-athena.UUCP> jc@mit-athena.UUCP (John Chambers) writes:
>Hey, I just noticed something curious that might be worth a few
>comments from y'all out there.  In the the phrase "I have it",
>I pronounce the 'v' voiced; while in "I have to" I pronounce
>the 'v' unvoiced. 
>
>This might be considered assimilation, but no: "I have time"
>has a voiced 'v'.  Also, if I listen to myself in introspective
>mode, it is obvious that my English-generating subroutines 
>treat the two meanings as two different words.  They are
>homographs; they are spelled the same, but have different
>pronunciations and meaning.
>
	I do it the same.  The basic reason is that "have to"
is essentially a "helping" or auxillary verb nearly synonymous
to "must", while "have" by itself is a normal(main) verb meaning
essentially "own/possess/hold". Thus your observations show that
in modern English the whole of "have to" is a *single* word,
showing normal *intra*word assimilation.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen