English questions

[zompist]

alcohol, alky, alkaline, alchemy, alcove, calculate, calculus, falcon, recalcitrant, Valkyrie... all with /æ/, but you started with talc.

I did say V[+round] above, which kind of excludes /æ/.

Again, this started by you bringing up talc! So I think you've answered your original question-- /ælk/ is exempt.

While I'm thinking of it, how do you pronounce milk, silk, etc.? It's a [w] for me, not a dark l as in /æl/.

[jal]

With /ɔ/: Balkan

I was today years old...

And in that way Balkan is weird because it 'should' be /ˈbælkən/.

Exactly.


JAL

[malloc]

How far does the usage of "stone" extend in British English? Does anyone ever say "that elephant weighs five thousand stone"?

[Travis B.]

alcohol, alky, alkaline, alchemy, alcove, calculate, calculus, falcon, recalcitrant, Valkyrie... all with /æ/, but you started with talc.

I did say V[+round] above, which kind of excludes /æ/.

Again, this started by you bringing up talc! So I think you've answered your original question-- /ælk/ is exempt.

/ælk/ is exempt if followed by a vowel or semivowel, which causes /k/ to fall in a different syllable rather than ME /alk/ (> /aulk/ (> ModE /ɔːk/)) falling in a stressed final syllable*.

* Note that this is rather sensitive to morphemic structure, e.g. stalking /ˈstɔːkɪŋ/, which has undergone this change even though it has an added morpheme beginning in a vowel that ought to change the syllabification.

While I'm thinking of it, how do you pronounce milk, silk, etc.? It's a [w] for me, not a dark l as in /æl/.

Coda /l/ for me is [ɯ̯], [ʊ̯], [ɤ̯], or [o̯] depending on the height and rounding of the preceding vowel, and it commonly retracts the preceding vowel as well. For instance, in these cases I have [mɨɯ̯ʔk]~[məɤ̯ʔk]~[mɜɤ̯ʔk]* and [s̟ɨɯ̯ʔk]~[s̟əɤ̯ʔk].

* This particular form may be influence from my mother's English, as she uniformly has /mɛlk/ for milk, as I've mentioned.

[Richard W]

How far does the usage of "stone" extend in British English? Does anyone ever say "that elephant weighs five thousand stone"?

No, they don't get so massive! The weight of elephants is normally expressed in tons, though I am not sure what one does for the weight of their calves. As their weight starts at around 14 stone, I suspect hundredweight would have been the more natural way of expressing their weights. Most beasts have gone metric or near metric - people haven't. A metric ton is close enough to the imperial ton to make only a marginal difference.

The weight of people tends to stay in stones as that gives a common large unit - plenty of people weigh less than 8 stone.

Potatoes rapidly graduate to larger units. 2 stones are a quarter (sc. of a cwt), and the usual sack for large quantities was half a cwt. These sacks have now gone metric, at 25kg.

[Lērisama]

How far does the usage of "stone" extend in British English? Does anyone ever say "that elephant weighs five thousand stone"?

As an alternative datapoint, I'm young and mostly metric¹, and have only heard people use stone for the weight of humans, and it's one of the few imperial measures I can't immediately convert into a rough metric one to understand.

¹ My brain works entirely in metric except for distances over roughly half a mile are in miles and all speeds are in miles per hour.

[alice]

A metric ton is close enough to the imperial ton to make only a marginal difference.

A "metric ton" is properly called a "tonne"; an ordinary "long" ton is 1.016 of them, 2240 pounds. As with the hundredweight (112 poonds), and pints and gallons, these are things which are smaller in the USA.

[Richard W]

Most beasts have gone metric or near metric - people haven't.

I should clarify this to "Most beasts' weights have gone metric or near metric - people's hasn't.". It seems that Lērisama thinks in kilograms for people's weight.

Incidentally, 'half a stone of potatoes' sounds vaguely familiar, but from the classroom, not an actual greengrocer's.

And in case it also turns up, people don't normally use any unit between yard and mile. The subdivisions of an acre (one chain by one furlong) are antiquarian.

[Travis B.]

I have noticed a variant form of regular that I have caught both myself and my dad using, specifically /ˈrɛɡjər/ [ˈʁʷˤɜːɟjʁ̩ˤ(ː)], alongside the usual /ˈrɛɡjələr/ [ˈʁʷˤɜːɟjɯːɰʁ̩ˤ(ː)]~[ˈʁʷˤɜːɟjəːɰʁ̩ˤ(ː)] and the careful /ˈrɛɡjulər/ [ˈʁʷˤɜːɟjuːɰʁ̩ˤ(ː)]. Does anyone else have this form or has anyone else observed this form in the wild?

[bradrn]

I have noticed a variant form of regular that I have caught both myself and my dad using, specifically /ˈrɛɡjər/ [ˈʁʷˤɜːɟjʁ̩ˤ(ː)], alongside the usual /ˈrɛɡjələr/ [ˈʁʷˤɜːɟjɯːɰʁ̩ˤ(ː)]~[ˈʁʷˤɜːɟjəːɰʁ̩ˤ(ː)] and the careful /ˈrɛɡjulər/ [ˈʁʷˤɜːɟjuːɰʁ̩ˤ(ː)]. Does anyone else have this form or has anyone else observed this form in the wild?

It doesn’t feel unnatural to me, but I can’t actually remember observing it myself. I’ll pay more attention in the future…

[anteallach]

/ælk/ is exempt if followed by a vowel or semivowel, which causes /k/ to fall in a different syllable rather than ME /alk/ (> /aulk/ (> ModE /ɔːk/)) falling in a stressed final syllable*.

* Note that this is rather sensitive to morphemic structure, e.g. stalking /ˈstɔːkɪŋ/, which has undergone this change even though it has an added morpheme beginning in a vowel that ought to change the syllabification.

I think it's more likely that the exceptions are caused by them not having been commonly used words in the language at the time the sound change happened than that it's to do with which syllable the /k/ was in. The diphthongisation of ME /a/ to /au/ before /l/ is not dependent on the presence of the /k/, and does not seem to have been blocked in other examples of /alCV/, e.g. Walter, alder, also. The forms of those words with the LOT vowel are I think later developments or different outcomes of the monophthongisation of /au/.

It does seem to usually have been blocked if the /l/ itself was followed immediately by a vowel.

[Travis B.]

/ælk/ is exempt if followed by a vowel or semivowel, which causes /k/ to fall in a different syllable rather than ME /alk/ (> /aulk/ (> ModE /ɔːk/)) falling in a stressed final syllable*.

* Note that this is rather sensitive to morphemic structure, e.g. stalking /ˈstɔːkɪŋ/, which has undergone this change even though it has an added morpheme beginning in a vowel that ought to change the syllabification.

I think it's more likely that the exceptions are caused by them not having been commonly used words in the language at the time the sound change happened than that it's to do with which syllable the /k/ was in. The diphthongisation of ME /a/ to /au/ before /l/ is not dependent on the presence of the /k/, and does not seem to have been blocked in other examples of /alCV/, e.g. Walter, alder, also. The forms of those words with the LOT vowel are I think later developments or different outcomes of the monophthongisation of /au/.

It does seem to usually have been blocked if the /l/ itself was followed immediately by a vowel.

Good point about other examples of /alCV/.

[Travis B.]

Has anyone else heard of /ɛə(r)/ or like being used for there in cases where assimilation and subsequent degemination could not apply? I ask because I have sometimes caught myself pronouncing there as /ɛr/ (or shall I say /er/?) [ɛ̝(ː)ʁˤ] and yesterday I heard my mother use the very same pronunciation at the start of a sentence.

[Imralu]

Has anyone else heard of /ɛə(r)/ or like being used for there in cases where assimilation and subsequent degemination could not apply? I ask because I have sometimes caught myself pronouncing there as /ɛr/ (or shall I say /er/?) [ɛ̝(ː)ʁˤ] and yesterday I heard my mother use the very same pronunciation at the start of a sentence.

When it's the existential there and I'm speaking fast, yes, but I don't think I ever do when it means 'to/in that place'.

There's ... [ðɛːz] → [ðɛz]
There are ... [ˈðɛːɹə] → [ˈðɛɹə]

[Travis B.]

Has anyone else heard of /ɛə(r)/ or like being used for there in cases where assimilation and subsequent degemination could not apply? I ask because I have sometimes caught myself pronouncing there as /ɛr/ (or shall I say /er/?) [ɛ̝(ː)ʁˤ] and yesterday I heard my mother use the very same pronunciation at the start of a sentence.

When it's the existential there and I'm speaking fast, yes, but I don't think I ever do when it means 'to/in that place'.

There's ... [ðɛːz] → [ðɛz]
There are ... [ˈðɛːɹə] → [ˈðɛɹə]

As you speaking of the vowel or the fact that /ð/ is being dropped altogether, which is what I'm referring to?

[jcb]

Etymonline says it's first attested in the 1580s, so the answer to "was it borrowed too late" is no. However, it also mentioned the form was "talke", so if that final "e" wasn't silent, we'd have two syllables, "tal" and "ke", which could explain.


JAL

I think the 1580s might be late enough that "it was borrowed too late" is plausible. The OED records spellings of talk with au in the 16th century, and it would make sense for the vowel change (if not the loss of /l/) to have occurred before the monophthongisation of Middle English /au/ to give the ancestor of the modern THOUGHT vowel.

It should be noted that l > 0 / V[+round]_k is not even complete today; e.g. in this case there are people today who pronounce balk with /l/, and likewise folk and polka are often pronounced by people with an /l/. For me it is almost complete, though, as the only word which resists this change that I can think of is the name Salk.

For me:
Without /l/, with /A/: balk, caulk, chalk, stalk, talk, walk
Without /l/, with /o/: folk, polka, yolk
With /Vl/: Balkan, bulk, hulk, sulk, alm, almond, balm, calm, palm, psalm, qualm
With /Il/: milk, silk

I'm not sure about names like "Salk" and "Faulkner", because they're names (which often don't follow spelling/pronunciation norms) and are also rarely said.

[Travis B.]

I think the 1580s might be late enough that "it was borrowed too late" is plausible. The OED records spellings of talk with au in the 16th century, and it would make sense for the vowel change (if not the loss of /l/) to have occurred before the monophthongisation of Middle English /au/ to give the ancestor of the modern THOUGHT vowel.

It should be noted that l > 0 / V[+round]_k is not even complete today; e.g. in this case there are people today who pronounce balk with /l/, and likewise folk and polka are often pronounced by people with an /l/. For me it is almost complete, though, as the only word which resists this change that I can think of is the name Salk.

For me:
Without /l/, with /A/: balk, caulk, chalk, stalk, talk, walk
Without /l/, with /o/: folk, polka, yolk
With /Vl/: Balkan, bulk, hulk, sulk, alm, almond, balm, calm, palm, psalm, qualm
With /Il/: milk, silk

I'm not sure about names like "Salk" and "Faulkner", because they're names (which often don't follow spelling/pronunciation norms) and are also rarely said.

Without /l/, with standard /ɔ/ (my /ɒ/), [ɒ]: balk, caulk, chalk, stalk, talk, walk, Faulkner
Without /l/, with standard /oʊ/ (my /o/), either [o̞] or [ø̞̆ŏ̞]: folk, polka, yolk
With /ʌl/, [ʌɤ̯]: bulk, hulk, sulk
With standard /ɔl/ (my /ɒl/), [ɒo̯]: bulk, Balkan, Salk
With my /ɑ/, [ɑ]*: balm, calm, palm, psalm, qualm
With standard /ɪl/ (my /ɨl/), [ɨɯ̯]~[əɤ̯]: milk, silk
With standard /ɛl/ (my /ɜl/), [ɜɤ̯]: milk

Yes, a couple words are in multiple different categories at once here.

* In reality this is nasalized here, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

[Imralu]

Has anyone else heard of /ɛə(r)/ or like being used for there in cases where assimilation and subsequent degemination could not apply? I ask because I have sometimes caught myself pronouncing there as /ɛr/ (or shall I say /er/?) [ɛ̝(ː)ʁˤ] and yesterday I heard my mother use the very same pronunciation at the start of a sentence.

When it's the existential there and I'm speaking fast, yes, but I don't think I ever do when it means 'to/in that place'.

There's ... [ðɛːz] → [ðɛz]
There are ... [ˈðɛːɹə] → [ˈðɛɹə]

As you speaking of the vowel or the fact that /ð/ is being dropped altogether, which is what I'm referring to?

Oh, lmao. I thought you were just posting about the vowel. I didn't realise you were transcribing the whole word.

[Richard W]

Has anyone else heard of /ɛə(r)/ or like being used for there in cases where assimilation and subsequent degemination could not apply? I ask because I have sometimes caught myself pronouncing there as /ɛr/ (or shall I say /er/?) [ɛ̝(ː)ʁˤ] and yesterday I heard my mother use the very same pronunciation at the start of a sentence.

Now you ask, I thing the ingress of air before sentence initial 'S not /znɒt/ can be shaped as inɡressive [ɛ]. However, I could be imagining it.

[Travis B.]

How do you pronounce hundred?

I ask because for me the number by itself is /ˈhʌndʒrəd/ [ˈhʌ̃ːntʃɹ̠ʁɘːt], but I pronounce X hundred and Y as X /ˈhʌnərən/ [ˈhʌ̃ːɾ̃ʁ̩ˤːʁˤɘ̃ːn] Y. Yet at the same time I notice many other people here, especially older people, pronounce hundred by itself as /ˈhʌnərd/ [ˈhʌ̃ːɾ̃ʁ̩ˤːt], and occasionally I will hear /ˈhʌndərd/ [ˈhʌ̃ːndʁ̩ˤːt].

([ɹ̠ʁ] is doubly-articulated, not a cluster.)