In isolation, no. But in this meme they are pronounced differently because intonation is different between the two phrases, and as exemplified here: inTOnation is AN inteGRAL part OF lanGUAGE.
“for the time BEing” vs. “for the TIME being”
In both cases you’re stressing the modifier, but in the former “being” is the modifier, while in the latter “time” is, so we get a prosodic stress contrast between the two.
It’s really interesting that they sound the same to you! I’d expect both to have merged to the “for the TIME being” stress pattern in that case - does that match your intuition?
Interesting, I process time being as a set idiomatic phrase rather than a modifier+ so there’s no need for emphasis on one part or the other. And time being as similar to human being wouldn’t get emphasis unless it was contrasting with a different kind of being. But I also think we’re muddying different types of stress, namely word stress vs prosodic stress. I think your reading has to do with the latter but your example is about the former.
Idiomatic phrases usually (but not always) retain a stress pattern that corresponds to the prosody of their original syntax even after they lexicalize. See: “the CAT’s out of the BAG” vs. “the CLAM’S out of the POND” and “kick the BUCKet” vs. “beat the MONkey”.
So, while I agree with you that “time being” (and probably all of “for the time being”, for that matter) is idiomatic, its prosody has fossilized from its original syntax in which “being” modified “time”.
“LET’S put it aSIDE for the time BEing”
“LET’S put it aSIDE for the man EATing”
My comment was based on fluent speech, not careful speech.
I’m entertaining the idea that some of the commenters here may speak varieties (or even idiolects) where the two pronunciations have merged, but I think the more likely explanation is that they’re laypeople who (like many native English speakers) aren’t easily able to detect stress contrasts without at least some training.
In isolation, no. But in this meme they are pronounced differently because intonation is different between the two phrases, and as exemplified here: inTOnation is AN inteGRAL part OF lanGUAGE.
“for the time BEing” vs. “for the TIME being”
In both cases you’re stressing the modifier, but in the former “being” is the modifier, while in the latter “time” is, so we get a prosodic stress contrast between the two.
a common thing people with autism and adhd is auditory processing issues, so it could work auditorily for them.
i said it out loud in a few different ways and it sounded the same to me, but it could be a regional thing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It’s really interesting that they sound the same to you! I’d expect both to have merged to the “for the TIME being” stress pattern in that case - does that match your intuition?
Interesting, I process time being as a set idiomatic phrase rather than a modifier+ so there’s no need for emphasis on one part or the other. And time being as similar to human being wouldn’t get emphasis unless it was contrasting with a different kind of being. But I also think we’re muddying different types of stress, namely word stress vs prosodic stress. I think your reading has to do with the latter but your example is about the former.
This is a good point worth commenting further on.
Idiomatic phrases usually (but not always) retain a stress pattern that corresponds to the prosody of their original syntax even after they lexicalize. See: “the CAT’s out of the BAG” vs. “the CLAM’S out of the POND” and “kick the BUCKet” vs. “beat the MONkey”.
So, while I agree with you that “time being” (and probably all of “for the time being”, for that matter) is idiomatic, its prosody has fossilized from its original syntax in which “being” modified “time”.
“LET’S put it aSIDE for the time BEing”
“LET’S put it aSIDE for the man EATing”
You’re over pronouncing it. You just say it normally and the joke works perfectly fine vocally.
My comment was based on fluent speech, not careful speech.
I’m entertaining the idea that some of the commenters here may speak varieties (or even idiolects) where the two pronunciations have merged, but I think the more likely explanation is that they’re laypeople who (like many native English speakers) aren’t easily able to detect stress contrasts without at least some training.