English questions

[Travis B.]

I notice that I frequently use a particle /ɑ/ [a(ː)] at the start of a sentence when first speaking to someone or when responding to someone. Note that this is distinct from 'uh' /ə/ [ə(ː)] and does not express doubt or disagreement. The only place I have seen this particle in writing is in the cases of "ah yes" and "ah no", but my usage is much more broad than these cases.

One notable usage is that I will often combine this particle with 'oh' /oʊ/ [o̞(ː)] as 'ah oh' /ɑ.oʊ/ [aː.o̞(ː)] when trying to get someone's attention. Another common usage on my part is I will precede someone's name with with /ɑ/ in a vocative fashion if it falls at the start of a sentence.

I myself am not sure entirely what the function or etymology of this particle is. Do you guys have any ideas here?

[/ˌnɐ.ˈɾɛn.dɚ.ˌduːd/]

I find myself very similarly having the particle 'uh' /ə/ [ə(ː)] for that use, as well as expressing doubt, disagreement, and consideration.

[salem]

I've never heard "ah, oh" before, but this "vocative ah" seems like a pretty normal and common filler sound to me. If it can be said to have a function, I think it's just to soften the act of addressing someone directly, as like a hedge or something.

[Travis B.]

I've never heard "ah, oh" before, but this "vocative ah" seems like a pretty normal and common filler sound to me. If it can be said to have a function, I think it's just to soften the act of addressing someone directly, as like a hedge or something.

You're probably right about its usage when addressing someone. As for its usage when responding to someone, I bet it is an extension of the uses of "ah" in "ah yes" and "ah no".

[alice]

Not at all. It’s perfectly possible for the vocal cords to begin vibrating without them having been held closed beforehand.

Quite. Dutch has, in contrast with German, no glottal stop before a vowel.


JAL

(My own translation; sorry for any errors. I don't speak much Dutch these days.)

Dit is interessant, want ik een boek "Learn Dutch!" van Fernand G Renier, gedrukt in 1941, heb. Erin is een phonetisch transcriptie, die enkele glottisslagen voor klinkers schrijft: "in midden van de Ɂeetkammer".

[Travis B.]

Not at all. It’s perfectly possible for the vocal cords to begin vibrating without them having been held closed beforehand.

Quite. Dutch has, in contrast with German, no glottal stop before a vowel.


JAL

(My own translation; sorry for any errors. I don't speak much Dutch these days.)

Dit is interessant, want ik een boek "Learn Dutch!" van Fernand G Renier, gedrukt in 1941, heb. Erin is een phonetisch transcriptie, die enkele glottisslagen voor klinkers schrijft: "in midden van de Ɂeetkammer".

Ich konnte das meistens verstehen, und ich spreche kein Niederländisch.

[Lērisama]

Quite. Dutch has, in contrast with German, no glottal stop before a vowel.


JAL

(My own translation; sorry for any errors. I don't speak much Dutch these days.)

Dit is interessant, want ik een boek "Learn Dutch!" van Fernand G Renier, gedrukt in 1941, heb. Erin is een phonetisch transcriptie, die enkele glottisslagen voor klinkers schrijft: "in midden van de Ɂeetkammer".

Ich konnte das meistens verstehen, und ich spreche kein Niederländisch.

Das fand ich auch.

[jal]

Dit is interessant, want ik heb een boek "Learn Dutch!" van Fernand G Renier, gedrukt in 1941, heb. Erin is Hierin staat een fonetische transcriptie*, die enkele glottisslagen voor klinkers schrijft: "in midden van de Ɂeetkammer".

*Or perhaps better, "hierin wordt een fonetische transcriptie gebruikt".

That's pretty weird imho, afaik Dutch lacks glottal stops just as it lacks aspirated plosives.


JAL

[jal]

From EngE speakers I have heard that they have clipping of vowels before fortis coda consonants

"Pre-fortis clipping" is a term devised by John Wells, but I find it a bit misleading, as nothing is clipped - it's compressed if anything. In "out" the diphthongue has the same start and end points as in "loud", it's not like it's clipped halfway or something.


JAL

[Travis B.]

From EngE speakers I have heard that they have clipping of vowels before fortis coda consonants

"Pre-fortis clipping" is a term devised by John Wells, but I find it a bit misleading, as nothing is clipped - it's compressed if anything. In "out" the diphthongue has the same start and end points as in "loud", it's not like it's clipped halfway or something.

In EngE there are effectively four vowel lengths -- clipped short vowels, unclipped short vowels, clipped long vowels, and unclipped long vowels, with ordinary vowels being any of these lengths. "Clipping" here just means it is a vowel shortening on top of existing vowel length.

Contrast this with the dialect here in SE Wisconsin, where there are three vowel lengths -- short, long, and overlong, with ordinary vowels only being short or long, and overlong vowels being due to vowel lengthening, mostly vowel coalescence resulting from intervocalic elision.

[Lērisama]

In EngE there are effectively four vowel lengths -- clipped short vowels, unclipped short vowels, clipped long vowels, and unclipped long vowels, with ordinary vowels being any of these lengths. "Clipping" here just means it is a vowel shortening on top of existing vowel length.

Yes, this is true, although it's hard to find four-way minimal pairs. I think the closest is [kʰʌ̆ʔ kʰʌt̚ kʰɑˑʔ kʰɑːt̚]¹²

¹ ⟨cut cud cart card⟩
² STRUT /ʌ/ and PALM/START/FATHER /ɑː/ are very similar, as the former is lower than the IPA. I still notate them differently as it's roughly intermediate between [ɑ] and [ʌ] neither is more wrong, but if it weren't for the history I wouldn't bother.

[Travis B.]

In EngE there are effectively four vowel lengths -- clipped short vowels, unclipped short vowels, clipped long vowels, and unclipped long vowels, with ordinary vowels being any of these lengths. "Clipping" here just means it is a vowel shortening on top of existing vowel length.

Yes, this is true, although it's hard to find four-way minimal pairs. I think the closest is [kʰʌ̆ʔ kʰʌt̚ kʰɑˑʔ kʰɑːt̚]¹²

¹ ⟨cut cud cart card⟩
² STRUT /ʌ/ and PALM/START/FATHER /ɑː/ are very similar, as the former is lower than the IPA. I still notate them differently as it's roughly intermediate between [ɑ] and [ʌ] neither is more wrong, but if it weren't for the history I wouldn't bother.

I wouldn't consider a lack of true minimal pairs to be the end of the world for things like these, because in many cases one can find swords with different but similar onsets that cover the bases.

For instance, IMD there are relatively few three-way minimal pairs for short vs. long vs. overlong vowels, but the distinction definitely exists in practice.

[Lērisama]

I wouldn't consider a lack of true minimal pairs to be the end of the world for things like these, because in many cases one can find swords with different but similar onsets that cover the bases.

For instance, IMD there are relatively few three-way minimal pairs for short vs. long vs. overlong vowels, but the distinction definitely exists in practice.

Yes, they're are not the be all and end all of phonemicity¹, but they are still very useful as a demonstration, and there is simply not a good set for this².

¹ For example, I would still analyse these words as /kʌt kʌd kɑːt kɑːd/
² Because coda /t/, where most of the more complete sets are, is usually [ʔ] not [t̚], and many longa nd short pairs differ a little in pronounciation. Ideally we'd have a set with all four members, /ɛ(ː)/ or /ɪ(ː)/ as the vowels and a coda pair other /t/d/, but I don't think there is one.

[Travis B.]

I wouldn't consider a lack of true minimal pairs to be the end of the world for things like these, because in many cases one can find swords with different but similar onsets that cover the bases.

For instance, IMD there are relatively few three-way minimal pairs for short vs. long vs. overlong vowels, but the distinction definitely exists in practice.

Yes, they're are not the be all and end all of phonemicity¹, but they are still very useful as a demonstration, and there is simply not a good set for this².

¹ For example, I would still analyse these words as /kʌt kʌd kɑːt kɑːd/
² Because coda /t/, where most of the more complete sets are, is usually [ʔ] not [t̚], and many longa nd short pairs differ a little in pronounciation. Ideally we'd have a set with all four members, /ɛ(ː)/ or /ɪ(ː)/ as the vowels and a coda pair other /t/d/, but I don't think there is one.

The trouble for me with finding three-way minimal pairs for vowel length IMD is that, even when one treats vowels of undefined length as 'short' (i.e. they are short when at the end of an utterance), monophthongs with three way distinctions are almost impossible except before /l/ because otherwise either the second element after an elided consonant forms a diphthong with the first vowel which is otherwise not possible (i.e. cannot appear short), or, before /r/ after the second vowel, the lengthened vowels do not fall together in quality with the rhotic vowels in isolation before /r/ (e.g. latter [ʟ̞ɛːʁˤ] and ladder [ʟ̞ɛːːʁˤ] versus lair [ʟ̞ɛ̝(ː)ʁˤ]).

[Richard W]

Yes, this is true, although it's hard to find four-way minimal pairs. I think the closest is [kʰʌ̆ʔ kʰʌt̚ kʰɑˑʔ kʰɑːt̚]¹²
...

¹ ⟨cut cud cart card⟩

Where are you from? To me, the short vowel is not back ([ʌ]) but central ([ɐ]).

When comparing similar short and long vowels, I couldn't persuade myself that there are four chrones rather than three chrones, though I do have different vowel lengths for scarce and bed.

[Lērisama]

Yes, this is true, although it's hard to find four-way minimal pairs. I think the closest is [kʰʌ̆ʔ kʰʌt̚ kʰɑˑʔ kʰɑːt̚]¹²
...

¹ ⟨cut cud cart card⟩

Where are you from? To me, the short vowel is not back ([ʌ]) but central ([ɐ]).

I'm from the Westcountry, but about the only local feature I have is obligatory prepositions for a locative to be¹. Footnote 2 should have been clearer. My /ʌ/ is a little fronted as well as a little lowered, but I don't think it's fully central. I've been using [ʌ] because of tradition and because [ɐ̙] and [ɑ̽] look ugly. I should really praat myself one day and just choose the closest symbol.

When comparing similar short and long vowels, I couldn't persuade myself that there are four chrones rather than three chrones, though I do have different vowel lengths for scarce and bed.

Then why aren't there four? To use the definitely clearer [ɛ]/[ɛː] contrast, I have different lengths in [bɛ̆ʔ bɛt̚ skɛˑs and bɛːt̚] ⟨bet bed scarce beared⟩? Or are your normal short and clipped long not distinct enough for you?

¹ I.e. the stereotypical ‘Where's that to?’

[bradrn]

I should really praat myself one day and just choose the closest symbol.

Join us!

[Richard W]

When comparing similar short and long vowels, I couldn't persuade myself that there are four chrones rather than three chrones, though I do have different vowel lengths for scarce and bed.

Then why aren't there four? To use the definitely clearer [ɛ]/[ɛː] contrast, I have different lengths in [bɛ̆ʔ bɛt̚ skɛˑs and bɛːt̚] ⟨bet bed scarce beared⟩? Or are your normal short and clipped long not distinct enough for you?

The pronunciation of scarce and laird argues for another two lengths, otherwise not seen in monophthongs and near monophthongs. (And this ignores the issue of audible morpheme junctures. I also perceive that I have a 3s subjunctive affix [:], probably derived by A-rule from ///z///.)

If anything, my word length order is bit, beat, bid, bead. I normally say them all with coronal final consonants, though I do normally have a glottal stop allophone, with a marginal glottal stop phoneme., which I often use in glottal stop to explain what I am talking about. Extracting vowel length is confounded by the final consonants having different lengths.

[jal]

I should really praat myself one day and just choose the closest symbol.

Join us!

They are already there :).


JAL

[Lērisama]

I should really praat myself one day and just choose the closest symbol.

Join us!

They are already there .


JAL

No I'm not. I've sadly not yet joined the ZBB English dialedt praat club.