11

I am aware that this question is rather more complex than I am treating it, but I am looking for a few general rules (e.g. basic phonotactic constraints) that would lead to the conclusion that the nonsense word "frabjous" conforms to English phonotactics. Any help (even if it is only a cursory explanation) would be much appreciated.

Rad Anyaz
  • 119
  • 1
  • 6
  • 8
    /ˈfɹæbdʒəs/ i.e. frab-juhs – Rad Anyaz Apr 14 '21 at 16:50
  • 5
    I think nonce word is perhaps a better descriptor than "nonsense" word. It's been in the lexicon for a century and a half now, after all. Don't forget that Carroll also gave us "chortle", which I daresay is pretty commonly used nowadays. – J... Apr 15 '21 at 16:31
  • 3
    I was wondering what the most precise term would be to describe the words coined by Carroll in "Jabberwocky". In academic literature I've seen everything from "neologism" and "nonsense word" to "coinage" and, as you say, "nonce word". These terms were all used interchangeably, but for my purposes (I have been researching nonsense literature), "nonsense word" seemed the most appropriate term. – Rad Anyaz Apr 15 '21 at 21:39
  • Fair enough. Arguably the words do have identifiable etymological roots, though, that are not properly nonsensical (ie: "fabulous"/"joyous", and "chuckle"/"snort", etc). They were created for a specific purpose (nonce) and are defensibly neologisms (having been adopted into the language) also, I would agree, but I feel I would hold short of calling them nonsense. – J... Apr 15 '21 at 22:08
  • I agree that "nonsense" is not an entirely accurate descriptor, "nonsense word" is a vexed term anyway (even though it is used by linguists and literary critics), as is "nonsense literature" when applied to "Jabberwocky", which is certainly not nonsensical in the usual sense of the word, at least at the syntactic and phonological level. – Rad Anyaz Apr 16 '21 at 09:16
  • frank + abject + gorgeous? – Kaz Apr 17 '21 at 05:12

2 Answers2

30

You mention the pronunciation /ˈfɹæb.dʒəs/ in the comments; this is how I would pronounce it too.

Phonotactics are usually explained in terms of constraints ("you can't do this"), so the short answer is that it doesn't violate any of those constraints.

If we look at all the parts individually:

  • /fɹ/ is a valid onset, as in "frog"
  • /æb/ is a valid rime, as in "lab"
  • /dʒ/ is a valid onset, as in "job"
  • /əs/ is a valid rime (in an unstressed syllable), as in "ruinous"
  • a stressed closed syllable followed by an unstressed closed syllable is a valid stress pattern, as in "madness"

And for the most part, any onset can be combined with any rime in English. So if all the onsets and rimes are valid, and the stress pattern is valid, the word is generally valid.

Draconis
  • 65,972
  • 3
  • 141
  • 215
  • 1
    Lucid indeed. The stress pattern is given in the rhyme (not rime) in the poem: O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! and it shows the stress has to be on the first syllable, which is also a straightforward English stress pattern. – jlawler Apr 14 '21 at 20:18
  • 1
    Do any English words contain the cluster [bdʒ]? If not, arguably that is a violation of a phonotactic constraint. (Frabjous has always felt to me like the only coinage in the Jabberwocky that doesn't sound like a plausible English word, because of that unusual cluster.) – TKR Apr 14 '21 at 20:50
  • 1
    @TKR I can't think of any words that contain it, but it might just be an accidental gap: we see "flapjack" with /pdʒ/ and compounds like "lab job" for example, so to my ear it sounds valid (albeit unusual). – Draconis Apr 14 '21 at 21:01
  • 23
    @TKR object, abject? – LjL Apr 14 '21 at 21:02
  • 1
    @LjL Oh, of course! Thank you, I don't know how I didn't think of those. – Draconis Apr 14 '21 at 21:02
  • 1
    @LjL Fair enough. Maybe my problem with the word is that it implies a stem frabj-, which seems impossible, but that's no longer about pure phonotactics of course. – TKR Apr 14 '21 at 21:14
  • 10
    There is also abjure. – Colin Fine Apr 14 '21 at 22:41
  • @LjL O abject night, I cried, I sighed – Barmar Apr 15 '21 at 14:42
  • What about /ˈfɹæbdʒ.əs/? I think frabjous corresponds to /ˈfɹæbdʒ.əs/ rather than /ˈfɹæb.dʒəs/ – Alex B. Apr 15 '21 at 14:42
  • 2
    @AlexB. To my ear, that sounds less valid, both because (my) English prefers onsets over codas and because /bdʒ/ sounds odd as a coda (*frabj on its own wouldn't be valid to me). – Draconis Apr 15 '21 at 16:03
  • @TKR: Does frabj- seem more impossible to you than, say, arthr- or cribr-? – ruakh Apr 16 '21 at 02:17
  • @ruakh For some reason it does, but I can't justify why -- I'm just describing my own response to the word. – TKR Apr 16 '21 at 04:09
  • @TKR My guess would be that it’s due to your understanding of Latin roots, and a sort of automatic knowledge that frabj- would not be a possible root structure in Latin. After a labial, /j/ should be vocalised into /i/ at the position at the end of a root before affixative vowels, so e.g. FRABIVM would be /ˈfra(ː).bi.um/, not /ˈfra(ː).bjum/, which would make the corresponding adjective in English frabious instead. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Apr 16 '21 at 06:34
  • For me, it's not about etymology, rather it's purely about the English phonotactics. Arthr- may be perfectly good Greek but wouldn't be an allowable English word, so I hear arthritic as /'aɾθ.ɾɪtɪk/ not /'aɾθɾ.ɪtɪk/ Likewise, there would have to be a word in order for me to split frabjous as frabj-ous. (Although looks pretty plausible...) – tea-and-cake Apr 17 '21 at 10:14
  • @JanusBahsJacquet: Quite possibly, but note that -ous isn't found only with Latin roots; for example, arthrous uses a Greek root. And borrowings can change in odd ways, due to the various languages they pass through and how different speakers heard them; for example, I don't think that most people would guess that jaunty and gentle come from the same Latin word (jaunty < French gentil /ʒɑ̃ti/), or hoosegow and adjudicate (hoosegow < Spanish juzgado /xusˈga.do/, with the /d/ being dropped in the relevant dialect). – ruakh Apr 17 '21 at 18:51
  • @tea-and-cake: I don't really understand your comment about arthr-. It sounds like you don't consider arthrous to be an English word?? – ruakh Apr 17 '21 at 18:53
  • 1
    @ruakh is an English word, but isn't, and is phonotactically impossible as one in English. My rejection of an analysis of = + wouldn't involve Latin, but simply that can't be an English word, and while could be a word, isn't a real word-ending. On the other hand, and
    are both unremarkable word-endings (albeit not both suffices). That's why, for me, is more impossible than and , both of which I can re-analyse as possible English words followed by valid word-endings.
         – tea-and-cake Apr 18 '21 at 12:33
5

As a new contributor myself, I have to post this as an answer, though it's slight enough that it should really be a comment on Draconis' excellent answer (specifically a response to TKR's comment on it).

I think the spelling makes <frabjous> look a bit less English than it sounds. Draconis enumerates lots of good reasons for why it's phonotactically English, but to my mind, the spelling <-jous> seems a bit odd. However, the Latinate suffix <-dious> (<tedious>, <studious>), while normally pronounced /diəs/, is generally unstressed, so, in many dialects it can be reduced to something approximating [dʒəs]. And to my eyes, <frabdious> looks a bit less alien (it would look even less weird as <frabjious> except that <-jious> seems not to occur anywhere).

tea-and-cake
  • 161
  • 3
  • Is the problem with the 'look' of the word a function of the use of the root's last letter 'J' - a letter not used in Latin (except as an 'I'), even though that last letter is the general connecting point to '-tious' or '-dious' suffix? – Pete855217 Apr 15 '21 at 12:51
  • 3
    Interesting question! So... let's see, for example, the made-up word (also with a Latinate suffix) looks pretty unremarkable. So my answer would be both yes and no. I don't think is necessarily out-of-place in a Latinate suffix, but specifically, is, well, weird. – tea-and-cake Apr 15 '21 at 12:58
  • I can imagine the word starting as (a la ) and altering over time to . @tea-and-cake – Barmar Apr 15 '21 at 14:46
  • 4
    Speech would, I feel, have to be exceptionally sloppy for "-dious" to get pronounced /dʒəs/. Fortunately, though, there are two word-endings that are typically pronounced /dʒəs/: "-geous" as in "gorgeous" and "gious" as in "contagious". So let's consider "frabgeous" and "frabgious". There is still a problem: in such an ending, "g" can only occur after a vowel sound (and either a vowel letter or "r"). "l" or "n" (as in "indulgent" or "dungeon") would at least be plausible. But that consonant cluster /bdʒ/ still isn't plausible. – Rosie F Apr 15 '21 at 19:20
  • Where are you from, Rosie? In lots of British dialects at least (including mine), yod-coalescence is widespread. Admittedly, /'stʃudʒəs/ for would be a bit much, but /'stʃudʒiəs/ would be unremarkable...

    In any case, your is an excellent example, complete with the right stress pattern! And looks, to me, like a real English word.

    I don't follow your last point. If we're thinking about morphemes, a suffix is indeed very implausible, but from a purely phonotactic point of view, hasn't the example of shown that /bdʒ/ is perfectly OK?

     – tea-and-cake Apr 15 '21 at 19:32
  • 1
    @RosieF: The notion that "g" pronounced "j" can't occur after a plosive consonant seems rather dodgy to me. – supercat Apr 15 '21 at 23:01
  • @tea-and-cake Sorry, I can't have been clear enough. Yes, a plosive may precede morpheme-initial /dʒ/, e.g. object, flapjack, inkjet. But I was thinking specifically about the Latinate ending "-ous" preceded by a /dʒ/ sound. I am indeed British. In my southern English accent there is yod-coalescence of the Latinate "ti" to /ʃ/ (action), "tu" to /tʃu/ or /tʃə/ (actual, picture) and "du" likewise (gradual, procedure). But typically not "di" -- I don't have, nor hear in others, the yod-coalescence implied by the eye-dialect spelling Injun. – Rosie F Apr 16 '21 at 05:39
  • @tea-and-cake Just thought of one example. Soldier. – Rosie F Apr 16 '21 at 05:50
  • 1
    Soldier's a good one! Although that little word is packed with potential for variant pronunciations... I started off speaking RP and had [sɒuɫdjə] but after a few decades in Scotland I now have [sowdʒʌɾ]... but anyway. Although I mostly agree with you, I have to try being a wee bit obdurate, and offer... . I definitely yod-coalesce that so it contains [bdʒə], how about you? Makes me think that would be a workable spelling. Normally the last syllable of that would be /uʊs/ but I could see that reducing to /əs/. – tea-and-cake Apr 16 '21 at 09:17