Klarinet Archive - Posting 000366.txt from 2004/03

From: <tony-w@------.co.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] English and American
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 05:08:49 -0500

From: Joe Fasel <jhf@------.gov>

> On 2004.03.05 08:34, tony-w@------.co.uk wrote:
> > Just one more example - clarinetist and clarinettist - which is correct?
> > They can`t both be!!
>
> (As he attempts to drag this thread back on-topic...) As I
> understand it, the general orthographic rule in British English
> is to double a final consonant when adding a suffix whenever the
> vowel is short, whereas in American English, there is the further
> requirement that the originally final syllable is stressed. (This,
> I presume, is connected with our appalling habit of turning
> unstressed vowels into schwas.) Now, in my experience, "clarinet"
> with stress on the last syllable is common, but so is stress
> on the first, but I think that "clarinettist" with stress on the
> third syllable is much more common than on the first (probably
> because three unstressed syllables in a row are awkward).
> Thus, even according to American orthography, and certainly,
> British, I would claim that "clarinettist" is to be preferred.
> [Note the "rr" in that last word.]
>
> Frankly, I hadn't noticed this issue with this word before,
> and I think I may have been spelling it the other way.
> I won't anymore. ;-)

Now I`m just wondering about the pronunciation aspect. It is important.
Maybe the English 'clarinettist' ensures no corruption of pronunciation.
'Clarinetist' could indeed be corrupted to 'clarine Tist', with the syllable
'ne' having a lesser importance - i.e. a throw away after the initial
'clari', before a positive accent on 'Tist'; as opposed to 'clarinet tist,
thus ensuring the 't' at the end of clarinet is most positively pronounced
before the final 'tist' is uttered.
A