Phonemically odd words

[Travis B.]

I've noticed that there exist at least in English a number of phonemically strange words, that are hard to analyze using conventional English phonology. Take geminates, for instance - geminates within the vast majority of morphemes have been lost altogether centuries ago, with most of the remaining geminates being due to clusters split by morpheme boundaries, or in present-day dialects, are due to cluster assimilation and reduction, such as vo[kː]a. However, there are few words where there exist geminates that are not easy to analyze in either of these ways. Most are numbers, such as thir[tː]een, four[tː]een, seven[tː]een, and nine[tː]een. However, at least in the dialect here, of all words (I've mentioned this one before), there is pi[tːs]a, as if the word were borrowed directly from some Italian language with the geminate intact. There are also other occasional words in the English dialect here which are phonemically strange, such as t[ʌːʁˤ]get, which implies a separate /ʌr/ which is not a mere allophone of /ɑr/ despite the fact that this only exists before a lenis obstruent in a single word. This is excluding interjections and ononatopoeia, which have a general tendency to be phonologically odd crosslinguistically.

So, does anyone else also have similarly phonologically odd words in other lects?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I've noticed that there exist at least in English a number of phonemically strange words, that are hard to analyze using conventional English phonology. Take geminates, for instance - geminates within the vast majority of morphemes have been lost altogether centuries ago, with most of the remaining geminates being due to clusters split by morpheme boundaries, or in present-day dialects, are due to cluster assimilation and reduction, such as vo[kː]a. However, there are few words where there exist geminates that are not easy to analyze in either of these ways. Most are numbers, such as thir[tː]een, four[tː]een, seven[tː]een, and nine[tː]een. However, at least in the dialect here, of all words (I've mentioned this one before), there is pi[tːs]a, as if the word were borrowed directly from some Italian language with the geminate intact. There are also other occasional words in the English dialect here which are phonemically strange, such as t[ʌːʁˤ]get, which implies a separate /ʌr/ which is not a mere allophone of /ɑr/ despite the fact that this only exists before a lenis obstruent in a single word. This is excluding interjections and ononatopoeia, which have a general tendency to be phonologically odd crosslinguistically.

So, does anyone else also have similarly phonologically odd words in other lects?

I hadn't really noticed it, but of these, I certainly have something like thirt-teen, fourt-teen, eight-teen, nynte-teen, but probably not the others; target has the star-vowel for me, so a hypothetical form turget would be odd.

I've also been noticing myself mentally reading ewe and ewer as [ɪːw] and ['ɪːː.wəɹ], respectively (eye-dialect probably eewe, eewer), despite [ɪːw] being an unusual sequence except in eww, with which this is probably analogical, along with the schoolbook spelling rule that "e" followed by a consonant followed by another vowel is pronounced /iː/ (phonemically, I think the words analyse as /iːw/ and /iːwəɹ/ psychologically). The names Ewart and Ewan also sometimes get such a mental reading.

[foxcatdog]

"Pizza" could be analysed as a cluster of t and s as the affricate ts is not a phoneme in english through my pronounciation does leave room for doubt.
The teen forms probably come form association with their plain forms through i don't know about "nineteen" through i don't have it.
"Ewe" is i imagine a spelling pronounciation.

[alice]

"Bury" comes to mind for some reason, although I'm not sure it's really what you're after.

[Travis B.]

"Pizza" could be analysed as a cluster of t and s as the affricate ts is not a phoneme in english through my pronounciation does leave room for doubt.

I have a clear contrast between pi[tːs]a and Na[ts]i though; the former has gemination where the latter does not for me.

The teen forms probably come form association with their plain forms through i don't know about "nineteen" through i don't have it.
"Ewe" is i imagine a spelling pronounciation.

For some reason in isolation I tend towards [iːu(ː)] for ewe, even though you're probably right that this is likely just spelling pronunciation.

[Travis B.]

Another word I thought of (mind you that this is an interjection) is hell[ou̯], with a very clear diphthong with a very close offglide, whereas normally /oʊ/ is a monophthong here except sometimes word-finally, and then it tends to be a much weaker diphthong, or prevocalically, where it is probably best analyzed as actually having a following /w/.

[Estav]

I've noticed that there exist at least in English a number of phonemically strange words, that are hard to analyze using conventional English phonology. Take geminates, for instance - geminates within the vast majority of morphemes have been lost altogether centuries ago, with most of the remaining geminates being due to clusters split by morpheme boundaries, or in present-day dialects, are due to cluster assimilation and reduction, such as vo[kː]a. However, there are few words where there exist geminates that are not easy to analyze in either of these ways. Most are numbers, such as thir[tː]een, four[tː]een, seven[tː]een, and nine[tː]een. However, at least in the dialect here, of all words (I've mentioned this one before), there is pi[tːs]a, as if the word were borrowed directly from some Italian language with the geminate intact. There are also other occasional words in the English dialect here which are phonemically strange, such as t[ʌːʁˤ]get, which implies a separate /ʌr/ which is not a mere allophone of /ɑr/ despite the fact that this only exists before a lenis obstruent in a single word. This is excluding interjections and ononatopoeia, which have a general tendency to be phonologically odd crosslinguistically.

So, does anyone else also have similarly phonologically odd words in other lects?

I don't perceive -teen numbers as having geminates in my dialect. There's a /t/ with the preceding rime clipped in thirteen, fourteen, nineteen, but this seems comparable to the occurrence of clipped /æ/ in tattoo, /eɪ/ in latex, or /aɪ/ (Canadian raising is non-phonemic for me) in high school.

That target example sounds similar to examples I've seen mentioned of exceptions to Candian raising distribution rules, like [əɪ] in spider and cider. I think I remember a post on the old forums (by Nortaneous, maybe?) saying that this often occurs in disyllabic bases where the second syllable contains /ə/. I'm curious, does [ʌːʁˤ] also feel possible for you in any of these words where -ar- is followed by a liquid: harness, varnish, tarnish, harmony? I feel like I have a length difference between harness and farness.

I'm not sure whether this is odd or not, but it feels natural to me to pronounce the plural of emeritus [ɘˈmeɚɘɾɘs] as [ɘˈmeɚɘɾaɪ], with a voiced flap (as in the singular) followed by [aɪ]. It seems like dictionaries usually show a secondary stress on the last syllable, which would imply to me [ɘˈmeɚɘtaɪ] with voiceless [t] instead.

[axolotl]

Another such word is "color," which in my speech is the only word in which [ʌl] occurs.

All other potentially-/ʌl/ words are pronounced [ʊl], though a few have "uneven free variation" in which [ʌl] is also a possible (but much less likely) alternate pronunciation.

[Travis B.]

I don't perceive -teen numbers as having geminates in my dialect. There's a /t/ with the preceding rime clipped in thirteen, fourteen, nineteen, but this seems comparable to the occurrence of clipped /æ/ in tattoo, /eɪ/ in latex, or /aɪ/ (Canadian raising is non-phonemic for me) in high school.

That target example sounds similar to examples I've seen mentioned of exceptions to Candian raising distribution rules, like [əɪ] in spider and cider. I think I remember a post on the old forums (by Nortaneous, maybe?) saying that this often occurs in disyllabic bases where the second syllable contains /ə/. I'm curious, does [ʌːʁˤ] also feel possible for you in any of these words where -ar- is followed by a liquid: harness, varnish, tarnish, harmony? I feel like I have a length difference between harness and farness.

I'm not sure whether this is odd or not, but it feels natural to me to pronounce the plural of emeritus [ɘˈmeɚɘɾɘs] as [ɘˈmeɚɘɾaɪ], with a voiced flap (as in the singular) followed by [aɪ]. It seems like dictionaries usually show a secondary stress on the last syllable, which would imply to me [ɘˈmeɚɘtaɪ] with voiceless [t] instead.

/ae/ versus /əe/ and /ɑr/ versus /ʌr/ are phonemic for me, as shown by pairs such as t/əe/ger versus f/ae/ber (I would tend to say T/əe/ber) and h/ʌr/th versus M/ɑr/tha and m/ʌr/sh versus f/ɑr/ce. There are also some odd words IMD such as t/ae/tanium and D/ae/COM. However, [ɑɔ] versus [ʌo] is not phonemic for me, as it is solely conditioned by the voicing of the next obstruent before the next vowel if t here is one. And yes, I have h/əe/ school as well as h/əe/ chair.

/ʌr/ is not possible for me before a liquid; harness, varnish, tarnish, and harmony all have /ɑr/ for me. Also, harness and farness only differ for me in their initial consonants.

[Travis B.]

Another such word is "color," which in my speech is the only word in which [ʌl] occurs.

All other potentially-/ʌl/ words are pronounced [ʊl], though a few have "uneven free variation" in which [ʌl] is also a possible (but much less likely) alternate pronunciation.

I have /ʌl/ in color, cruller, hull, and I personally have it in bulk but that may be a spelling pronunciation because I have heard other people here who have /ɔl/ in bulk.

[axolotl]

Another such word is "color," which in my speech is the only word in which [ʌl] occurs.

All other potentially-/ʌl/ words are pronounced [ʊl], though a few have "uneven free variation" in which [ʌl] is also a possible (but much less likely) alternate pronunciation.

I have /ʌl/ in color, cruller, hull, and I personally have it in bulk but that may be a spelling pronunciation because I have heard other people here who have /ɔl/ in bulk.

Where are you from? The ʌl/ʊl -> ɔl thing before consonants and wordfinally is a well-established thing in American English, but I've never been able to find any clear geography of it, other than "vaguely Southern Midwest." I lived in Kansas City for a long time and noticed that it seemed to be a *very* common feature there in particular.

[Travis B.]

Another such word is "color," which in my speech is the only word in which [ʌl] occurs.

All other potentially-/ʌl/ words are pronounced [ʊl], though a few have "uneven free variation" in which [ʌl] is also a possible (but much less likely) alternate pronunciation.

I have /ʌl/ in color, cruller, hull, and I personally have it in bulk but that may be a spelling pronunciation because I have heard other people here who have /ɔl/ in bulk.

Where are you from? The ʌl/ʊl -> ɔl thing before consonants and wordfinally is a well-established thing in American English, but I've never been able to find any clear geography of it, other than "vaguely Southern Midwest." I lived in Kansas City for a long time and noticed that it seemed to be a *very* common feature there in particular.

I'm from southeastern Wisconsin. I have /ʌlC/ > /ɔlC/ in a variety of words and morphemes such as bulb, gulf (yes, I have the gulf-golf merger), ultra-, multi-, ultimate, and so on. Note that for me this only occurs before another consonant, and never word-finally. For me personally there are some words which do not have this shift which do have it in other varieties, such as pulse and the aforementioned bulk, but I do hear people here who have them.