Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:49 pmE.g. /ˈsælmən/ for me is a writer, not a fish.
Not Salman Khan??
Good point. Let me amend that to "a writer or a terrible actor".
Oh what the...why do I get those two mixed up so easily?!? EDIT: Why indeed. I have heard that pronunciation for Salman Rushdie before. Maybe even from my own dad.
That reminds me, though, when I was little, I used to call Amitabh Bachchan [ələbəˈbaːbət͡ʃɛn]. (My parents call him [əmiˈd̪aːbət͡ʃɛn]. They also say [d͡ʒəʋəhaːrˈlaːl] instead of [d͡ʒəˈʋahərlal] and I think also [ʋəɾəˈɳaːsi]).
I have /ˈsɐl.mən/ for both until I found out the /l/ is supposed to be silent for the fish. Now I only pronounce it in Hebrew.
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him! kårroť
Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:00 pm
I also have /ˈsælmən/ for the author (never heard of the actor) and /ˈsæmən/ for the fish.
Same.
Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:49 pmin every case I can think of where popular variants with and without /l/ occur (e.g. almond, balk, salmon), I strongly prefer the /l/-less variant. E.g. /ˈsælmən/ for me is a writer, not a fish.
I have no /l/ in balk and salmon, /l/ in almond (I've only heard /æmənd/ once and found it rather unpleasant--I have /ɑlmənd/), and ambivalent /l/ in folk (they're actually lexically distinct: [fəʊ̯k] refers to the people, [fɔɫk] is a genre of music).
But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me?
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?
I usually pronounce <l> in all positions, but native speakers make fun of me for doing so (especially in half).
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him! kårroť
I'll just go on pronouncing things wiredly [weirdly, but I often pronounce weird like wired as a joke].
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him! kårroť
anteallach wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:19 am
I have /l/ in balk (but not in walk, talk etc.), dolphin and Salman (which I seem to have as /'salman/, with both vowels strong).
I don't have /l/ in folk, salmon or almond. The latter two have different vowels: /ˈsamən/ but /ˈɑːmənd/; I don't know why.
Probably because "salmon" has never had an /l/ in it - it was borrowed after the lateral was lost, and is in the spelling only for reasons of pretentiousness. Whereas the /l/ was dropped from 'almond' in English, after triggering lengthening of the vowel.
I'm curious about the pronounciation of 'almond' with a short 'a', though. How did that happen? [and I'd never heard before of the spelling pronunciation of 'salmon'! Nor the l-less dolphin!]
[I don't have any of these innovations. I used to have 'l' in 'balk' the verb, but not in the noun/adjective (eg 'balk line'), but I don't think I do anymore.]
Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:08 pm
I'm curious about the pronounciation of 'almond' with a short 'a', though. How did that happen? [and I'd never heard before of the spelling pronunciation of 'salmon'! Nor the l-less dolphin!]
Probably the way that spelling-pronounced falcon ended up with /æl/ despite having not /al/ but rather the diphthong /au/ at the time it was borrowed into English from later Old French as faucon.
My English is usually pretty heavy on spelling pronunciations; /hɑːf ~ hæ[ː]f/, /tɔːk/, /wɔːk/ might be the only words I have with consistent silent <em>l</em>. But /pɑːlm/, /ɔːlmənd/, /sɔːlmən/, /fɔːlk/, /jɔːlk/ (not /foʊlk/, /joʊlk/ for some reason). This can be velarized as far as [ʟ] or mere vowel lateralization though (while for some other coda /l/, I may go even with clear [l], maybe most consistently for /ld/).
For as long as I can remember, I've always dropped the first /ɪ/. At some point I learned the stress belonged on the antepenult rather than the preantepenult but I still never say it in six syllables.
Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:08 pm
I'm curious about the pronounciation of 'almond' with a short 'a', though. How did that happen? [and I'd never heard before of the spelling pronunciation of 'salmon'! Nor the l-less dolphin!]
Probably the way that spelling-pronounced falcon ended up with /æl/ despite having not /al/ but rather the diphthong /au/ at the time it was borrowed into English from later Old French as faucon.
That is indeed also a weird one, though I'm not sure I've ever heard it in person. The spelling pronunciation of the /l/ isn't too great a surprise, but it's odd that some dialects also change the vowel. I wonder whether this is a hyperavoidance of the trap-bath split? (Since I think it's the north of england has that pronunciation mostly). Even though it's not actually the bath vowel in standard english anyway...
anteallach wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:19 am
I have /l/ in balk (but not in walk, talk etc.), dolphin and Salman (which I seem to have as /'salman/, with both vowels strong).
I don't have /l/ in folk, salmon or almond. The latter two have different vowels: /ˈsamən/ but /ˈɑːmənd/; I don't know why.
Probably because "salmon" has never had an /l/ in it - it was borrowed after the lateral was lost, and is in the spelling only for reasons of pretentiousness. Whereas the /l/ was dropped from 'almond' in English, after triggering lengthening of the vowel.
Looks like it. I'd assumed that French saumon would have been borrowed into Middle English with /au/, and that that might have given modern /ɑː/ just as it did in calm, palm, almond where the /au/ came from older /al/. However, it seems like the usual English pronunciation has always been with /a/; the OED does show spellings such as sawmon but it looks like they were in the minority.
On the other hand, faucon was indeed borrowed with /au/, and /au/ developed regularly to /ɔː/, hence the pre-spelling-pronunciation version /ˈfɔːkən/. (I have /ˈfalkən/ though.)
anteallach wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:19 am
I have /l/ in balk (but not in walk, talk etc.), dolphin and Salman (which I seem to have as /'salman/, with both vowels strong).
I don't have /l/ in folk, salmon or almond. The latter two have different vowels: /ˈsamən/ but /ˈɑːmənd/; I don't know why.
Probably because "salmon" has never had an /l/ in it - it was borrowed after the lateral was lost, and is in the spelling only for reasons of pretentiousness. Whereas the /l/ was dropped from 'almond' in English, after triggering lengthening of the vowel.
Looks like it. I'd assumed that French saumon would have been borrowed into Middle English with /au/, and that that might have given modern /ɑː/ just as it did in calm, palm, almond where the /au/ came from older /al/. However, it seems like the usual English pronunciation has always been with /a/; the OED does show spellings such as sawmon but it looks like they were in the minority.
On the other hand, faucon was indeed borrowed with /au/, and /au/ developed regularly to /ɔː/, hence the pre-spelling-pronunciation version /ˈfɔːkən/. (I have /ˈfalkən/ though.)
You're up north, iirc? (sorry if I misremember)
I have /Q/. But I think that for me the Q/O: distinction is neutralised in this position. I'm certainly familiar with O:, but that might just be from cloth-splitting dialects.
The pronunciation [ˈfɒo̯kn̩(ː)]~[ˈfɒo̯kɘ̃(ː)(n)], i.e. with /ɔːl/, is more natural for me than the pronunciation with [ˈfɛɤ̯kn̩(ː)]~[ˈfɛɤ̯kɘ̃(ː)(n)], i.e. with /æl/, and since I picked up the word from reading it rather than from hearing it I naturally opted for the former pronunciation - I only realized that people here pronounce it the latter way later on.
Two words that interestingly enough have l-elision (and not vocalization) for me are polka (where I have [ˈpʰokə(ː)], i.e. with /oʊ/) and Volvo (where I have [ˈvoːvo(ː)], i.e. with /oʊ/); what makes them interesting is that the words post-date the period of /l/ vocalization or elision in Standard English.
Has anyone here heard centralization of /oʊ/ in the Upper Midwest? I notice that my daughter frequently has [əʊ] for it when most people at least close to my age or older here have some sort of allophony between [o] and [oʊ] (e.g. I have [o] except before vowels and sometimes finally, where then I have [oʊ] or even [ou]) with little centralization, even if they frequently centralize /uː/.
