The "How Do You Pronounce X" Thread

[Raphael]

How do you pronounce "veggies", as in, a colloquial form of "vegetables"?

[bradrn]

How do you pronounce "veggies", as in, a colloquial form of "vegetables"?

/ˈvedʒiːz/ [ˈve̞d͡ʒiːz̻]

[Raphael]

How do you pronounce "veggies", as in, a colloquial form of "vegetables"?

/ˈvedʒiːz/ [ˈve̞d͡ʒiːz̻]

Thank you!

[Travis B.]

How do you pronounce "veggies", as in, a colloquial form of "vegetables"?

/ˈvedʒiːz/ [ˈve̞d͡ʒiːz̻]

In NAE it is the equivalent /ˈvɛdʒiz/, for which I have [ˈvɜːtʃiːs].

[Raphael]

Thank you! I was mainly curious about hard vs soft g. Yes, the g in "vegetables" is soft, but double gs in English seem to be usually hard.

[jal]

Thank you! I was mainly curious about hard vs soft g. Yes, the g in "vegetables" is soft, but double gs in English seem to be usually hard.

Of course, "veggie" is just a calque, the pronunciation came first.


JAL

[Richard W]

Thank you! I was mainly curious about hard vs soft g. Yes, the g in "vegetables" is soft, but double gs in English seem to be usually hard.

But this is a result of counting non-assimilative doublings of single 'g'. The final soft 'g' sound is normally written using 'dg(e)', as in judge, and does not need doubling to work like a double letter.

[/ˌnɐ.ˈɾɛn.dɚ.ˌduːd/]

How do y'all pronounce colonel? I've always pronounced it /ˈkɚnəl/, but I've heard several people pronounce it as it's spelled, and it got me wondering which is correct.

[Travis B.]

How do y'all pronounce colonel? I've always pronounced it /ˈkɚnəl/, but I've heard several people pronounce it as it's spelled, and it got me wondering which is correct.

It's always been /ˈkɜrnəl/ with NURSE as far as I am aware (I myself pronounce it [ˈkʰʁ̩̃ˤː(ɾ̃)ɯ(ː)]), and pronouncing it as spelled is some really bizarre spelling pronunciation to me (/r/ in it originated in French from whence it was borrowed, and the double-lateral spelling is a later one under the influence of the Italian from which the French borrowed it from before they dissimilated it, but the pronunciation with NURSE stuck in English).

[Space60]

For British people, do you pronounce "February" like "Febry"? I have heard this plenty of times from British people on TV and the radio.

[Lērisama]

For British people, do you pronounce "February" like "Febry"? I have heard this plenty of times from British people on TV and the radio.

I regularly drop the schwa, but it's not identical to a */fɛbrɪj/. I might have a [jɹ̠ʷ] or palatalise the cluster? I'd odd, whatever's going on.

[WeepingElf]

Question of a non-native English speaker: Does zounds rhyme with sounds for you, or with wounds?

[Space60]

Question of a non-native English speaker: Does zounds rhyme with sounds for you, or with wounds?

I would pronounce "zounds" to rhyme with "sounds" and that is all I have ever heard. However, "zounds" is an archaic word not used in ordinary modern speech.

[WeepingElf]

Question of a non-native English speaker: Does zounds rhyme with sounds for you, or with wounds?

I would pronounce "zounds" to rhyme with "sounds" and that is all I have ever heard. However, "zounds" is an archaic word not used in ordinary modern speech.

I have always had the gut feeling that it ought to rhyme with sounds, but I have once read that it is a shortening of God's wounds, which suggests otherwise.

[Space60]

Question of a non-native English speaker: Does zounds rhyme with sounds for you, or with wounds?

I would pronounce "zounds" to rhyme with "sounds" and that is all I have ever heard. However, "zounds" is an archaic word not used in ordinary modern speech.

I have always had the gut feeling that it ought to rhyme with sounds, but I have once read that it is a shortening of God's wounds, which suggests otherwise.

It probably did rhyme with "wounds" back when the word was oridinarily used. However it is not regularly used today and as a consequence of this, a spelling pronunciation developed.

[Lērisama]

It probably did rhyme with "wounds" back when the word was oridinarily used. However it is not regularly used today and as a consequence of this, a spelling pronunciation developed.

Is that definitely the case? The old English was wund /wund/, which would undergo homorganic lengthening to /wuːnd/, and then should have become */wawnd/ in the great vowel shift. I can't find any reason¹ for why did didn't undergo the GVS, so if the coinage were sufficiently early, it could just have developed regularly to ?/zawndz/. Admittedly this is entirely speculative without knowing anymore about either word.

¹ Admittedly I did only a cursory googling

[WeepingElf]

I would pronounce "zounds" to rhyme with "sounds" and that is all I have ever heard. However, "zounds" is an archaic word not used in ordinary modern speech.

I have always had the gut feeling that it ought to rhyme with sounds, but I have once read that it is a shortening of God's wounds, which suggests otherwise.

It probably did rhyme with "wounds" back when the word was oridinarily used. However it is not regularly used today and as a consequence of this, a spelling pronunciation developed.

Seems likely to me.

[Space60]

It probably did rhyme with "wounds" back when the word was oridinarily used. However it is not regularly used today and as a consequence of this, a spelling pronunciation developed.

Is that definitely the case? The old English was wund /wund/, which would undergo homorganic lengthening to /wuːnd/, and then should have become */wawnd/ in the great vowel shift. I can't find any reason¹ for why did didn't undergo the GVS, so if the coinage were sufficiently early, it could just have developed regularly to ?/zawndz/. Admittedly this is entirely speculative without knowing anymore about either word.

¹ Admittedly I did only a cursory googling

The word "wound" typically resisted the Great Vowel Shift. Though I have read that there are or were dialects where the word did undergo the Great Vowel Shift. Merriam-Webster online lists an archaic or dialectal pronunciation of "wound" (injury) to rhyme with "sound".

[Lērisama]

It probably did rhyme with "wounds" back when the word was oridinarily used. However it is not regularly used today and as a consequence of this, a spelling pronunciation developed.

Is that definitely the case? The old English was wund /wund/, which would undergo homorganic lengthening to /wuːnd/, and then should have become */wawnd/ in the great vowel shift. I can't find any reason¹ for why did didn't undergo the GVS, so if the coinage were sufficiently early, it could just have developed regularly to ?/zawndz/. Admittedly this is entirely speculative without knowing anymore about either word.

¹ Admittedly I did only a cursory googling

The word "wound" typically resisted the Great Vowel Shift. Though I have read that there are or were dialects where the word did undergo the Great Vowel Shift. Merriam-Webster online lists an archaic or dialectal pronunciation of "wound" (injury) to rhyme with "sound".

Do we have data on the pronouciation of ⟨zounds⟩ then? There is no reason it would necessarily follow its etymon if it were coined early enough, although the OED online say the earliest attestation was 1593, so it was probably too late for this.

[Nortaneous]

an extra chwelve dollars (re affrication of /t/ before /w/ discussion from ages ago)