English questions

[Travis B.]

The sterotype is that Audtralian FACE and GOAT are fully PRICE and HOUSE vowels. For some speakers, it does seem that their FACE and GOAT match my GA PRICE and HOUSE, with the actual PRICE and HOUSE distinguished by other means (e.g. backing in the case of PRICE)

Well, I suppose that isn’t entirely false, insofar as non-Australian PRICE is often something like [aɪ]. But these days Australian (and British) PRICE is more like [ɑɪ].

British /æ/ is also often further back than NA /æ/, which often breaks to [eə], which then gets hypercorrected back to [æ] in words like "Graham" and "mayonnaise".

I have /ɡræm/ for Graham and /kræn/ for crayon but /ˈmeɪneɪz/ for mayonnaise. I should note that I do not natively distinguish [eə], [ɛ], and [æ] — to me they are all /æ/ — but I do hear [ɛ], which I hear as /ɛ/, as distinct from [eə] and [æ], which I hear as /æ/, in other English varieties.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I have /ɡræm/ for Graham and /kræn/ for crayon but /ˈmeɪneɪz/ for mayonnaise. I should note that I do not natively distinguish [eə], [ɛ], and [æ] — to me they are all /æ/ — but I do hear [ɛ], which I hear as /ɛ/, as distinct from [eə] and [æ], which I hear as /æ/, in other English varieties.

I wasn't familiar with that "crayon" pronunciation — I pronounce it with two full syllables, roughly [kʰɹeɪ̯.jɑ̃n]. My /æ/ is somewhat diphthongal in certain environments, now that I think on it — "Graham/Grahame" is certainly [gɹæə̯̃m], so I sort-of half-way have /æ/-breaking in certain contexts; also "mayonnaise" is ['mæː.neɪ̯z̺].

I think I might also be starting to vocalise the glottalisation of terminal /t/ — my "let" is getting oddly like [lɛə̯ʔt̚] these days (the intrusive schwa is very short, and the coda is almost but not quite fully glottalised).

[azhong]

I'm learning "as if". In the sentence
They acted as if they knew me.
Did the addresser believe "they" knew him/her (at the time) or not?

How can I modify the sentence, and still using "as if" if possible, to say that
1 He thought it was possible they knew him/her. (a possible fact)

2 He didn't believe it.(a hypothetical tone)

Thank you.

[Richard W]

I'm learning "as if". In the sentence
They acted as if they knew me.
Did the addresser believe "they" knew him/her (at the time) or not?

How can I modify the sentence, and still using "as if" if possible, to say that
1 He thought it was possible they knew him/her. (a possible fact)

2 He didn't believe it.(a hypothetical tone)

Thank you.

The sentence is neutral as to utterer's beliefs.

1. They certainly acted as if they knew me.
2. They acted as if they actually knew me.

Other changes could be rung if the verb would show the difference between indicative and subjunctive.

[azhong]

I made a sentence,

He took a long look at her like a boy did at a new toy in the department store's window. His eyes wandered downwards, then back upwards, and at last looked into her eyes again.,

and I was told "at last" was improper. A suggested term is "finally". I had considered them synonyms before this.

I checked the Cambridge dictionary, where I read

Finally, at last, lastly and in the end all have a meaning of ‘after a period of time’.
We use finally to refer to something that happened after a long time and usually after some difficulties.
We use at last when we have been impatient as a result of long delays.
We use in the end to refer to a conclusion after a long process, after a lot of changes or after a lot of discussion

Q: Is it that at last is improper here because it implies the connotation of "impatiently" or anything even more unnatural?
Q: Would "in the end" fit better for you than "finally" and "at last"? Or do you suggest some other more proper phrase?

Thank you for your reply.

[Travis B.]

I made a sentence,

He took a long look at her like a boy did at a new toy in the department store's window. His eyes wandered downwards, then back upwards, and at last looked into her eyes again.,

and I was told "at last" was improper. A suggested term is "finally". I had considered them synonyms before this.

I checked the Cambridge dictionary, where I read

Finally, at last, lastly and in the end all have a meaning of ‘after a period of time’.
We use finally to refer to something that happened after a long time and usually after some difficulties.
We use at last when we have been impatient as a result of long delays.
We use in the end to refer to a conclusion after a long process, after a lot of changes or after a lot of discussion

Q: Is it that at last is improper here because it implies the connotation of "impatiently" or anything even more unnatural?
Q: Would "in the end" fit better for you than "finally" and "at last"? Or do you suggest some other more proper phrase?

Thank you for your reply.

At last would imply that there was some significant delay in doing something before it was actually done, unlike finally which just implies that someone did something last.

[Kuchigakatai]

I gotta say that conversely I've never understood the exact nuances between 終於, 最後, 究竟, 總算 and 到底 in Mandarin... All of them usually said to mean "at last ~ finally ~ in the end" in dictionaries.

[Travis B.]

By the way, I would not say that at last in this case is incorrect - rather it would indicate that there was some delay in looking into her eyes again, as if he took his time in looking at her, rather than that he just looked down and looked right up again.

[azhong]

I gotta say that conversely I've never understood the exact nuances between 終於, 最後, 究竟, 總算 and 到底 in Mandarin... All of them usually said to mean "at last ~ finally ~ in the end" in dictionaries.

According to what Travis has told me, I'll roughly group them so:
最後: finally
終於, 總算: at last (emphasizing the connotation of waiting for a period already or the effort to arrive.)

到底, 究竟: The two have a different meaning. They are most commonly used with the meaning of "on earth" in an expression like
"What on earth do you need?"
你 到底/究竟 需要 什麼？
And with this meaning they are always used in questions.

[Raphael]

I've got the impression that when you're listing adjectives that describe the same person, animal, or thing, it's the norm to list adjectives that describe temporary traits first, and adjectives that describe permanent traits last. So it would be "right" to talk about a "hungry brown dog", but "wrong" to talk about a "brown hungry dog". I don't know exactly why I think this, but it somehow feels that way to me.

So, would you agree or disagree with me on that?

[zompist]

I've got the impression that when you're listing adjectives that describe the same person, animal, or thing, it's the norm to list adjectives that describe temporary traits first, and adjectives that describe permanent traits last. So it would be "right" to talk about a "hungry brown dog", but "wrong" to talk about a "brown hungry dog". I don't know exactly why I think this, but it somehow feels that way to me.

For English, the usual order is said to be

valuation (good...)
size (big...)
shape/quality (beautiful; round...)
age (old..)
color (brown...)
origin (Dutch...)
material (wooden...)
purpose (cooking...)

(Sites that give examples can't seem to find actual adjectives for "purpose", and neither can I at this hour.)

So you should say "a big old Dutch wooden spoon" and not "a wooden Dutch old big spoon".

I say "said to be" because, as syntactic rules go, it's weak. I don't personally think "an old big dog" or "a brown beautiful car" are ungrammatical, though they may be more marked stylistically. Plus you can freely violate the rule due to topicalization: "You're talking about good authors in general, but are there any Dutch good authors?"

[Rounin Ryuuji]

"Are there any DUTCH good authors?" still sounds a little odd to me. I wouldn't call it ungrammatical, but definitely unidiomatic.

[Raphael]

Thank you!

[Moose-tache]

Note this topicalization only works for restrictive, as opposed to descriptive, adjectives. I wonder if this is an inherent feature of topicalization, or if it's a quirk of English?
"I'm looking for the Dutch old authors, specifically."
*"Some dutch old authors used to come here."

Also, there are plenty of lexical exceptions. For me, "the tremendous old Dutchman" and "the old tremendous Dutchman" sound equally good, which is not the same for a more generic adjective of size, like "big." And of course, some adjective-noun combinations form their own lexical item, and resist breaking.
"It's a Dutch Wife, but made of wood. It's a wooden Dutch Wife."
*"Oh, you mean a Dutch wooden Wife?"
"Fuck off."

[zompist]

Note this topicalization only works for restrictive, as opposed to descriptive, adjectives. I wonder if this is an inherent feature of topicalization, or if it's a quirk of English?
"I'm looking for the Dutch old authors, specifically."
*"Some dutch old authors used to come here."

Nice observation. I think if you're cobbling together a description, it sounds best in the recommended order.

Though even here, I think a mismatch is stylistically marked rather than wrong. Like, you thought about them being Dutch before remembering that they were also old. That is, I think the second sentence could be used, whereas "*Old Dutch some authors" can't be.

[ÜberBen]

While I was researching lexical sets for Baby's First English Orthographic Reform, I found out that the "long U" sound of new, mute, accuse, human belongs in the GOOSE set, presumably analyzed as the sequence /ju/, with its rhotic counterpart in pure likewise lumped togther alongside yodless poor. Given the existence of minimal pairs like mute - moot (and the aforementioned pure - poor), isn't it better to analyze "long U" as a diphthong /ɪ̯u/?

[Travis B.]

While I was researching lexical sets for Baby's First English Orthographic Reform, I found out that the "long U" sound of new, mute, accuse, human belongs in the GOOSE set, presumably analyzed as the sequence /ju/, with its rhotic counterpart in pure likewise lumped togther alongside yodless poor. Given the existence of minimal pairs like mute - moot (and the aforementioned pure - poor), isn't it better to analyze "long U" as a diphthong /ɪ̯u/?

Diachronically I would say that "long U" is derived from a historical /ɪ̯u/, yes. Synchronically it has acquired a reduced realization of [jə] as well. Similarly "long U" before /r/ frequently alternates with [jɜ(r)] (ignoring the realization of the rhotic itself). Crossdialectically, "long U" has lost its initial [j] after alveolars in stressed syllables in many varieties (e.g. most of NAE), and has palatalized initial /s/ in sure and sugar, such that native speakers in affected varieties (practically all varieties with regard to sure and sugar) have no intuitive sense of there being a yod there in the first place.

[Richard W]

Not to mention that the vowel is now short in sugar.

[Travis B.]

One good argument that the English "long U" deserves its own lexical set, at least before historical /r/, is the following: Take your examples of pure and poor. While both can be /pjuːr/ and /puːr/ (or some would argue /pjʊr/ and /pʊr/), they readily become /pjɜ(r)/ and /pɔː(r)/, but they generally do not become */pjɔː(r)/ or */pɜ(r)/, and two pairs of realizations may alternate, implying that the connection between /pjuːr/ and /pjɜ(r)/, and between /puːr/ or /pɔː(r)/ is still alive in some varieties. (E.g. for me /pjur/ and /pjɜr/ readily alternate based on stress, and while my native realization of poor is /pur/, I am very familiar with speakers of other dialects having /pɔr/ for the same.)

[anteallach]

One good argument that the English "long U" deserves its own lexical set, at least before historical /r/, is the following: Take your examples of pure and poor. While both can be /pjuːr/ and /puːr/ (or some would argue /pjʊr/ and /pʊr/), they readily become /pjɜ(r)/ and /pɔː(r)/, but they generally do not become */pjɔː(r)/ or */pɜ(r)/, and two pairs of realizations may alternate, implying that the connection between /pjuːr/ and /pjɜ(r)/, and between /puːr/ or /pɔː(r)/ is still alive in some varieties. (E.g. for me /pjur/ and /pjɜr/ readily alternate based on stress, and while my native realization of poor is /pur/, I am very familiar with speakers of other dialects having /pɔr/ for the same.)

Yes, for me CURE words with a historic yod (including cases like lure, sure and Turing where the yod has disappeared or coalesced with the consonant) retain something like [ʊː] whereas the ones without have merged into the FORCE set. I think something like this is quite a common pattern.

For me your and yours are exceptions to the general rule: they are FORCE, so the former is not pronounced like the river name Ure.