Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:32 pm
What do you guys have for the following?
...
How do you pronounce these in you most informal, reduced speech? Specifically, I am looking to see if any of you have certain pronunciations found here, but I don't want to influence your answers.
I tried really paying attention to how I say these things, as opposed to how I
perceive myself as saying these things:
I don't: [a(i) dõ(ː)ũ(n)(ʔ)], the -t is definitely glottalised, and the [n], if there, is barely independently articulated; very reduced: [ɐ dõũ(ʔ)], possibly with some weird tonal business on the
don't.
you don't: [juw dõ(ː)ũ(n)(ʔ)], if I'm stressing the "you", however the "you" usually reduces under almost all circumstances to [jə], minimally, [jdõũ(ʔ)], with only the slightest pause, maybe with a devoiced schwa, between the [j] and [d], and with the
don't maybe having some sort of tonal business going on.
he doesn't [çij dʌ(z).zə̃(n)ʔ], if I'm stressing the "he", which is otherwise closer to [hɪ], except with the [ɪ] possibly tensed as a much shorter than usual
, and not a full [ij]; maximally reduced, [hɪ dʌzə̃(ʔ)] (every one of these has what I call that "maybe a weird tonal business"; I'm honestly not sure what it is, but it seems pretty prevalent
I was: Usually something like [ai wz], with a syllabic "z", I guess; there may be a slight, supershort [ʌ~ə] in there; very reduced, may be [ɐ wz].
you were: Usually [jʊ wɹ], with [ɹ] as the nucleus, or with a very slight [ʌ~ə]; might reduce even as far as [jwɹ], [j] and [w], and [r] as the nucleus.
he was: Usually [çij wz] — I definitely reduce "was" more than the pronoun on these; minimally probably something like [hɪ wz].
can: [kʰæ̃(n)], reduced [kʰə̃(n)]
would: usually [wʊd], but possibly as far as [wd], or even [wʔ] with the [d~ʔ] being some sort of nucleus, I suppose.
should: usually [ʃʊd], but possibly as far as [ʃd], or even [ʃʔ] with the [d~ʔ] being some sort of nucleus, I suppose.
could: [kʊd], but possibly as far as [kʰd~gd~kʰʔ~gʔ] or [ʔd], or something very reduced and glottally.
can't: Sometimes almost as a diphthong [kʰæ̃ə̃(n)(ʔ)], with some sort of tone shift between them (before [æ], /k/ may also be [cʰ], but this is sporadic, and the palatalisation is often rather weak when it occurs for me; in other speakers, it seems to me much stronger); the vowel is almost always fully realised with this one, even in reduced speech, probably to maintain distinctness with "can".
wouldn't: [wʊdə̃(ʔ)~wʊ(ʔ)ə̃(ʔ)]
shouldn't: [ʃʊdə̃(ʔ)~ʃʊ(ʔ)ə̃(ʔ)]
couldn't: [kʰʊdə̃(ʔ)~kʰʊ(ʔ)ə̃(ʔ)]
*have to: [hæv tʰə] ("to" is usually quite reduced for me in most expressions), often reduced to [(h)æf.tə] (I tend to say "have to", but throw the "got" in when the "have" contracts);
I've got to [aiv gɒːʔ tʰə], more reduced [ai(v) gɒːʔ tʰə], even more reduced [ai gɒːdə]
be going to: fully pronounced, [gouwĩŋ tʰə], reduced [gɔ̃ɪ̃ŋ tʰə~gɔ̃ɪ̃ŋdə~gɔ̃ɪ̃(n)də], very reduced "gonna" [gənə~gnə] (with a syllabic [g, or a very, very slight break between [g] and [n] that might be a devoiced schwa)
want to: [wɒ̃ː(n)(ː)ʔ tʰə], reduced [wɒ̃ː(ʔ)nə], with the glottal stop often wholly elided.
(The "tonal business" in things like "can't" and "won't" might also be some sort of diphthongal breaking; I'm really not sure what I'm hearing myself do there, but the sound feels like it moves around rather oddly somehow.) Fighting my own perception of how some of these words are pronounced is... kind-of hard.
