English questions

[Travis B.]

In my own dialect of English, the direct voicing distinction in plosives is primarily present intervocalically, and for fricatives prevocalically. (/dʒ/, I should note, is normally voiceless for me regardless of environment or position, with [tʃ] and [tɕ] as its primary allophones, except when extremely carefully enunciated.) However, as mentioned, there a wide range of phonetic cues that keep lenis and fortis pairs from merging in most cases even when voicing is entirely neutralized and even when there is no aspiration contrast.

[jcb]

Yes, the aspiration on /p/ is missing, but it's still unvoiced, and /b/ is still voiced.

It was my understanding that the voice/unvoiced distinction in English is minor compared to aspirated/unaspirated, and the distinction gets lost in many environments. But maybe I'm overgeneralizing some special cases like intervocalic flapping in GenAm.


JAL

I've heard this description before, but I don't hear it in my dialect at least.

In fact, around here, when people want to do a mock German (or should I say, Cherman) accent, they devoice their voiced plosives, making the distinction between /p/ and /b/ (etc) one purely of aspiration, or simply merging them.

[Travis B.]

Yes, the aspiration on /p/ is missing, but it's still unvoiced, and /b/ is still voiced.

It was my understanding that the voice/unvoiced distinction in English is minor compared to aspirated/unaspirated, and the distinction gets lost in many environments. But maybe I'm overgeneralizing some special cases like intervocalic flapping in GenAm.


JAL

I've heard this description before, but I don't hear it in my dialect at least.

In fact, around here, when people want to do a mock German (or should I say, Cherman) accent, they devoice their voiced plosives, making the distinction between /p/ and /b/ (etc) one purely of aspiration, or simply merging them.

Here a mock German accent involves things like replacing /w/ with [v] or (paradoxically) /v/ with [w], replacing lenis plosive phonemes with fortis plosive phonemes, replacing initial /s/ with [z], stopping /θ ð/ in all positions, not flapping intervocalic /t d n nt/, shoving an English vowel system into a German vowel system, and so on. However, voiceless lenis plosives are a normal part of the English here.

Of course, one could make the argue that the English here has elements of non-Anglic substratum influence, with its NCVS (which I have seen theorized as originating in substrata), its dorsal rhotics (when not after a coronal), its uniformly voiceless /dʒ/, and its (inconsistent and conditional) stopping of /θ ð/ (particularly initially). However, much of this is just hypothesis.

[bradrn]

It was my understanding that the voice/unvoiced distinction in English is minor compared to aspirated/unaspirated, and the distinction gets lost in many environments. But maybe I'm overgeneralizing some special cases like intervocalic flapping in GenAm.


JAL

I've heard this description before, but I don't hear it in my dialect at least.

In fact, around here, when people want to do a mock German (or should I say, Cherman) accent, they devoice their voiced plosives, making the distinction between /p/ and /b/ (etc) one purely of aspiration, or simply merging them.

Here a mock German accent involves things like replacing /w/ with [v] or (paradoxically) /v/ with [w]

Reminds me of an old comic skit I saw recently, set in a haunted house, in which the stereotypical ‘gypsy fortune-teller’ compares the bite of a ‘verevolf’ to that of a ‘wampire’…

[Travis B.]

I've heard this description before, but I don't hear it in my dialect at least.

In fact, around here, when people want to do a mock German (or should I say, Cherman) accent, they devoice their voiced plosives, making the distinction between /p/ and /b/ (etc) one purely of aspiration, or simply merging them.

Here a mock German accent involves things like replacing /w/ with [v] or (paradoxically) /v/ with [w]

Reminds me of an old comic skit I saw recently, set in a haunted house, in which the stereotypical ‘gypsy fortune-teller’ compares the bite of a ‘verevolf’ to that of a ‘wampire’…

The w~v thing also goes for speakers of Indo-Aryan languages (e.g. Romani languages), as most Indo-Aryan languages have allophony of their native /ʋ/ such that it covers everything from [w] to [ʋ] to [v], and hence their accents in English stereotypically make no distinction between English /w/ and /v/ but rather vary between [w], [ʋ], and [v] freely.

[jcb]

It was my understanding that the voice/unvoiced distinction in English is minor compared to aspirated/unaspirated, and the distinction gets lost in many environments. But maybe I'm overgeneralizing some special cases like intervocalic flapping in GenAm.


JAL

I've heard this description before, but I don't hear it in my dialect at least.

In fact, around here, when people want to do a mock German (or should I say, Cherman) accent, they devoice their voiced plosives, making the distinction between /p/ and /b/ (etc) one purely of aspiration, or simply merging them.

Here a mock German accent involves things like replacing /w/ with [v] or (paradoxically) /v/ with [w], replacing lenis plosive phonemes with fortis plosive phonemes, replacing initial /s/ with [z], stopping /θ ð/ in all positions, not flapping intervocalic /t d n nt/, shoving an English vowel system into a German vowel system, and so on. However, voiceless lenis plosives are a normal part of the English here.

Of course, one could make the argue that the English here has elements of non-Anglic substratum influence, with its NCVS (which I have seen theorized as originating in substrata), its dorsal rhotics (when not after a coronal), its uniformly voiceless /dʒ/, and its (inconsistent and conditional) stopping of /θ ð/ (particularly initially). However, much of this is just hypothesis.

Yes, those other things are part of the mock German accent too. I just listed the one that was relevant.

Interestingly, I do have stopping of /T D/ initially, but I definitely don't have NCVS.

[Travis B.]

Interestingly, I do have stopping of /T D/ initially, but I definitely don't have NCVS.

This is common in lower registers of many English varieties; e.g. it is common in urban dialects in the Great Lakes region.

[jcb]

Interestingly, I do have stopping of /T D/ initially, but I definitely don't have NCVS.

This is common in lower registers of many English varieties; e.g. it is common in urban dialects in the Great Lakes region.

BTW, just to clarify, when I say /T D/ stopping, I mean *dental* stops. They're still distinct from the alveolar stops /t d/.

Also, I don't live in the Great Lakes region, but do live somewhat near it.

[Travis B.]

Interestingly, I do have stopping of /T D/ initially, but I definitely don't have NCVS.

This is common in lower registers of many English varieties; e.g. it is common in urban dialects in the Great Lakes region.

BTW, just to clarify, when I say /T D/ stopping, I mean *dental* stops. They're still distinct from the alveolar stops /t d/.

Also, I don't live in the Great Lakes region, but do live somewhat near it.

To me it depends; my stopping of (mostly but not solely initial) /θ/ is as [t̪] or I will realize it as an affricate [t̪θ] (but I even in low registers may leave it unstopped as [θ]), while my initial /ð/ has a wide range of realizations ranging from [ð] to [d̪] to [d̪ð] to [t̪] to [t̪θ] to [n̪] to [d] to [t] to [z] to [s] depending on environment and register.

[alice]

Interestingly, I do have stopping of /T D/ initially, but I definitely don't have NCVS.

This is common in lower registers of many English varieties; e.g. it is common in urban dialects in the Great Lakes region.

It's also common in southern Irish accents, of course.

[anteallach]

Interestingly, I do have stopping of /T D/ initially, but I definitely don't have NCVS.

This is common in lower registers of many English varieties; e.g. it is common in urban dialects in the Great Lakes region.

It's also common in southern Irish accents, of course.

And in the Caribbean (though IIRC there they are actually merged with /t/ /d/).

I don't have stopping of /θ/ but initial /ð/ is often a dental affricate, and I don't think this is unusual in England.

[Raphael]

Why is it "forget", but "forgettable" or "unforgettable"? Seems like English rules for when to cut out double letters or not and when to double single letters or not while you're forming compounds are even weirder than the English tense system.

[bradrn]

Why is it "forget", but "forgettable" or "unforgettable"? Seems like English rules for when to cut out double letters or not and when to double single letters or not while you're forming compounds are even weirder than the English tense system.

Wiktionary says the following about -able:

The final consonant of a root is doubled in the same contexts as when adding the suffix -ed. In general, this means doubling occurs when the preceding vowel is short and stressed (as in winnable) but not when it is long (as in obtainable) or unstressed (as in openable). In British English, a final L is typically doubled after a short vowel regardless of whether the vowel is stressed or unstressed (as in compellable, modellable). In American English, final L typically follows the same rules as other consonants (as in compellable, modelable). These are the general trends, but there is some variation within British and American English between these two methods of doubling final L.

[Raphael]

Thank you!

[Travis B.]

Why is it "forget", but "forgettable" or "unforgettable"? Seems like English rules for when to cut out double letters or not and when to double single letters or not while you're forming compounds are even weirder than the English tense system.

Wiktionary says the following about -able:

The final consonant of a root is doubled in the same contexts as when adding the suffix -ed. In general, this means doubling occurs when the preceding vowel is short and stressed (as in winnable) but not when it is long (as in obtainable) or unstressed (as in openable). In British English, a final L is typically doubled after a short vowel regardless of whether the vowel is stressed or unstressed (as in compellable, modellable). In American English, final L typically follows the same rules as other consonants (as in compellable, modelable). These are the general trends, but there is some variation within British and American English between these two methods of doubling final L.

I should also note that this is regard with traditional 'short' and 'long' vowels in English, and not with regard to the kind of English vowel length we talk about around here. For instance, in 'debatable' the stressed vowel is traditionally 'long' even though in NAE it is phonetically short.

[Richard W]

I should also note that this is regard with traditional 'short' and 'long' vowels in English, and not with regard to the kind of English vowel length we talk about around here. For instance, in 'debatable' the stressed vowel is traditionally 'long' even though in NAE it is phonetically short.

Who's 'we'?

[Travis B.]

I should also note that this is regard with traditional 'short' and 'long' vowels in English, and not with regard to the kind of English vowel length we talk about around here. For instance, in 'debatable' the stressed vowel is traditionally 'long' even though in NAE it is phonetically short.

Who's 'we'?

Well, both our American board members like myself, who talk about one layer of allophonic vowel length, and our English and Australian board members, who talk about modern EngE and AusE phonemic vowel length (which is different from traditional English vowel length) combined with a layer of allophonic vowel length on top of it.

[Raphael]

How would you describe the thing that fat in a frying pan does when it gets into contact with Teflon? "Bounces off"? "Gets deflected"?

[Travis B.]

How would you describe the thing that fat in a frying pan does when it gets into contact with Teflon? "Bounces off"? "Gets deflected"?

Honestly, I don't have a special phrasing for this ─ I would just say that it "doesn't stick".

[Raphael]

How would you describe the thing that fat in a frying pan does when it gets into contact with Teflon? "Bounces off"? "Gets deflected"?

Honestly, I don't have a special phrasing for this ─ I would just say that it "doesn't stick".

Thank you. I was wondering about using it as a figure of speech. Something like, "When you try to provide a proudly ignorant person with information, it [... ... ...] like fat off Teflon."