English questions

[quinterbeck]

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)/

I have [pjɔː] for pure nearly all the time (BrE), although occasionally I might produce [pjɜː] or [pjɵː]. I feel confident in saying it's underlyingly /pjɔː/. I definitely have /ʃɔː/ for sure (the sure-shore merger...?). Not sure how that impacts your case.

[Travis B.]

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)/

I have [pjɔː] for pure nearly all the time (BrE), although occasionally I might produce [pjɜː] or [pjɵː]. I feel confident in saying it's underlyingly /pjɔː/. I definitely have /ʃɔː/ for sure (the sure-shore merger...?). Not sure how that impacts your case.

I should mention that I am not quite as familiar with EngE varieties as I am with NAE despite most of the TV I watch being British...

[Travis B.]

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)/

I have [pjɔː] for pure nearly all the time (BrE), although occasionally I might produce [pjɜː] or [pjɵː]. I feel confident in saying it's underlyingly /pjɔː/. I definitely have /ʃɔː/ for sure (the sure-shore merger...?). Not sure how that impacts your case.

I should note that a distinction need not be present in all dialects to get its own lexical set by any means. I would be willing to bet that easily enough of English has this distinction to warrant getting a lexical set.

[Travis B.]

Question for all of you, particularly native English-speakers:

How front does your /uː ʊ oʊ/ get? I ask because from listening to other English-speakers, particular NAE-speakers, speak, I notice that these can be fronted quite significantly (and the more I pay attention, the fronter they seem to get), particularly when adjacent to and especially when between coronals. While it is easy to say that they are merely centralized, /uː ʊ/ in particular seem to get more than merely centralized in many cases (whereas /oʊ/ seems to only get centralized).

I have personally noticed that for me these phonemes when between coronals or when following a coronal and not followed by a non-coronal they may even approach [y ʏ ɵ̞]. However when following a non-coronal and especially when between non-coronals they have non-fronted realizations as [u ʊ o̞]. Hence for me there is a drastic difference between toot [tʲʰyʔ(t)] and kook [kʰuʔk], between soot [sʲʏʔ(t)] and cook [kʰʊʔk] and between tote [tʰɵ̞ʔ(t)] and coke [kʰo̞ʔk].

[bradrn]

How front does your /uː ʊ oʊ/ get? I ask because from listening to other English-speakers, particular NAE-speakers, speak, I notice that these can be fronted quite significantly (and the more I pay attention, the fronter they seem to get), particularly when adjacent to and especially when between coronals. While it is easy to say that they are merely centralized, /uː ʊ/ in particular seem to get more than merely centralized in many cases (whereas /oʊ/ seems to only get centralized).

Mine are usually [ʉː ʊ ɞ͡ʉ], but I don’t believe they have any more fronted realisation for me.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

How front does your /uː ʊ oʊ/ get? I ask because from listening to other English-speakers, particular NAE-speakers, speak, I notice that these can be fronted quite significantly (and the more I pay attention, the fronter they seem to get), particularly when adjacent to and especially when between coronals. While it is easy to say that they are merely centralized, /uː ʊ/ in particular seem to get more than merely centralized in many cases (whereas /oʊ/ seems to only get centralized).

My /oː~ou/ is usually simply [oʊ]. As far as /ʊ uː/ go, they're usually [ʊ uʊ], but they can be [ʉ ʉʊ] after [j], in which they're in free variation.

[Darren]

Question for all of you, particularly native English-speakers:

How front does your /uː ʊ oʊ/ get? I ask because from listening to other English-speakers, particular NAE-speakers, speak, I notice that these can be fronted quite significantly (and the more I pay attention, the fronter they seem to get), particularly when adjacent to and especially when between coronals. While it is easy to say that they are merely centralized, /uː ʊ/ in particular seem to get more than merely centralized in many cases (whereas /oʊ/ seems to only get centralized).

I have personally noticed that for me these phonemes when between coronals or when following a coronal and not followed by a non-coronal they may even approach [y ʏ ɵ̞]. However when following a non-coronal and especially when between non-coronals they have non-fronted realizations as [u ʊ o̞]. Hence for me there is a drastic difference between toot [tʲʰyʔ(t)] and kook [kʰuʔk], between soot [sʲʏʔ(t)] and cook [kʰʊʔk] and between tote [tʰɵ̞ʔ(t)] and coke [kʰo̞ʔk].

In AusE, GOOSE and GOAT tend to be pretty fronted; especially GOAT (which for me is [ɔy̯]; that's apparently a specifically SA thing, while other states have something like [ɐy̯]). For me it's more obviously fronted in open syllables. GOOSE is a diphthong ending in a more fronted element, probably [ʊʉ̯]; PUT on the other hand isn't significantly fronted at all. Things change up before coda /l/; i.e. goal would be [ɡɔʊ̯(ɫʷ)]; pool is pretty much identical to Paul [pʰʊu̯(ɫʷ)] and not that far away from pull.

[bradrn]

Things change up before coda /l/; i.e. goal would be [ɡɔʊ̯(ɫʷ)]; pool is pretty much identical to Paul [pʰʊu̯(ɫʷ)] and not that far away from pull.

Oh true, I forgot about that! My goal and pool are straightforwardly [ɡow] and [pʰuː(w)] — about the only place I actually have truly high back vowels.

[Travis B.]

I was aware of GOOSE-centralization in AusE and NZE, but from what you say the primary allophony in AusE at least is before /l/ rather than when adjacent to coronals. I myself also have allophony before /l/, as shown by toll [tʰo̞(ː)ʊ̯] rather than *[tʰɵ̞(ː)ʊ̯], where the following /l/, which is vocalized, cancels out the effect of the preceding coronal.

[anteallach]

Question for all of you, particularly native English-speakers:

How front does your /uː ʊ oʊ/ get? I ask because from listening to other English-speakers, particular NAE-speakers, speak, I notice that these can be fronted quite significantly (and the more I pay attention, the fronter they seem to get), particularly when adjacent to and especially when between coronals. While it is easy to say that they are merely centralized, /uː ʊ/ in particular seem to get more than merely centralized in many cases (whereas /oʊ/ seems to only get centralized).

I have personally noticed that for me these phonemes when between coronals or when following a coronal and not followed by a non-coronal they may even approach [y ʏ ɵ̞]. However when following a non-coronal and especially when between non-coronals they have non-fronted realizations as [u ʊ o̞]. Hence for me there is a drastic difference between toot [tʲʰyʔ(t)] and kook [kʰuʔk], between soot [sʲʏʔ(t)] and cook [kʰʊʔk] and between tote [tʰɵ̞ʔ(t)] and coke [kʰo̞ʔk].

My GOOSE and GOAT are both quite fronted (except before /l/) but I'm not aware of any coronal effect. Indeed I just recorded "toot" and "coot" and the formants look very similar.

I don't think my FOOT is particularly fronted; it certainly feels backer than the other two, and while the F2 for the GOOSE words above was about 1650 Hz the F2 for "put" is about 1150 Hz. (For comparison, the F2 for FLEECE is about 2550 Hz.)

[zyxw59]

My /uː/ is [ɨː], and my /oʊ/ is something like [əɰ]. I think my /ʊ/ is basically [ʊ] but with very little, if any, rounding.

[Travis B.]

My /uː/ is [ɨː], and my /oʊ/ is something like [əɰ]. I think my /ʊ/ is basically [ʊ] but with very little, if any, rounding.

What rounded vowels do you have?

[zyxw59]

My /uː/ is [ɨː], and my /oʊ/ is something like [əɰ]. I think my /ʊ/ is basically [ʊ] but with very little, if any, rounding.

What rounded vowels do you have?

/uː/ and /ʊ/ are maybe slightly rounded after labials, and the [ɰ] in my /oʊ/ might be slightly rounded as well. My /w/ is fully rounded, I think. And I do have proper /u/ and /o/ (i.e. fully rounded and back) in Spanish.

[Travis B.]

And I do have proper /u/ and /o/ (i.e. fully rounded and back) in Spanish.

To me, having a fully rounded and backed [u ʊ o] where I wouldn't expect them (e.g. between alveolar consonants) sounds like a foreign accent.

[vlad]

Question for all of you, particularly native English-speakers:

How front does your /uː ʊ oʊ/ get? I ask because from listening to other English-speakers, particular NAE-speakers, speak, I notice that these can be fronted quite significantly (and the more I pay attention, the fronter they seem to get), particularly when adjacent to and especially when between coronals. While it is easy to say that they are merely centralized, /uː ʊ/ in particular seem to get more than merely centralized in many cases (whereas /oʊ/ seems to only get centralized).

For me, FOOT is consistently back and rounded, probably more like [u̞] than [ʊ]. Before /l/ it might even be cardinal [ u ].

GOOSE and GOAT are central [ɘʉ ɜʉ] in most cases, but are back [uː ɔʊ] before dark /l/. Pull [puɫ] and pool [puːɫ] are distinguished by length. (But pool [puːɫ] and Paul [po̞ːɫ] are clearly distinct, I don't know what Darren is talking about.)

There is actually a marginal contrast between the central and back vowels, because:
a) Whether /l/ is dark is influenced by morpheme boundaries, so that lowly [lɜʉliː] and holy [hɔʊɫiː] form a near-minimal pair.
b) The interjections oh [ɘʉ] ~ [ɔʊ] and ooh [ɘʉ] ~ [uː]* can be pronounced with either a central vowel or a back vowel (despite the lack of /l/), and the interjection whoa is consistently back, so that whoa [wɔʊ] and woe [wɜʉ] form a minimal pair. (* Actually now that I think about it, the "back" pronunciation of ooh migh be more like [ʊː] than [uː]. But it's still clearly distinct from [ɘʉ].)

My /l/ isn't ever vocalized or labialized, and coronals other than /l/ don't seem to impact the vowels.

[azhong]

I've made a four-sentence passage, something like a fairy tale, and this is the first sentence.
1. *Deep in a forest, there was a tower, where lived a pretty girl.

And I received corrections accompanied with comments,
2. Deep in the forest, there was a tower where a beautiful girl/ fair maiden lived.

- "Pretty" is stylistically too colloquial and modern for your story IMO.
- "Maiden" would also be possible if you want to give the passage a slightly archaic feeling.
- but "maiden" goes better with "fair", not "beautiful".

However I felt unsafe with "in the forest" without any introduction before it, I said, and then I received another suggestion,
3. Once upon a time, deep in a forest ...

I myself made another sentence. I don't know yet if it's idiomatic.
4. "There was a forest, deep in it a tower, where lived a fair maiden."

Well, you can see the post is to ask if the fourth sentence is idiomatic. Or you can just see it is to share a small story of a Chinese learning English, and you can response anything you like.

[bradrn]

I've made a four-sentence passage, something like a fairy tale, and this is the first sentence.
1. *Deep in a forest, there was a tower, where lived a pretty girl.

And I received corrections accompanied with comments,
2. Deep in the forest, there was a tower where a beautiful girl/ fair maiden lived.

- "Pretty" is stylistically too colloquial and modern for your story IMO.
- "Maiden" would also be possible if you want to give the passage a slightly archaic feeling.
- but "maiden" goes better with "fair", not "beautiful".

However I felt unsafe with "in the forest" without any introduction before it, I said, and then I received another suggestion,
3. Once upon a time, deep in a forest ...

I myself made another sentence. I don't know yet if it's idiomatic.
4. "There was a forest, deep in it a tower, where lived a fair maiden."

Well, you can see the post is to ask if the fourth sentence is idiomatic. Or you can just see it is to share a small story of a Chinese learning English, and you can response anything you like.

Not only is the fourth sentence non-idiomatic, it is also totally ungrammatical. The phrase ‘deep in it a tower’ is at fault here: there are situations where you can create a clause without a verb, but not very many of them, and they need quite a bit of context to be grammatical.

Personally, I think I’d go with a modification of your first attempt:

5. Deep in the forest, there was a tower, where there lived a fair maiden.

Some notes on this:

• ‘The forest’ is perfectly safe here: despite the presence of ‘the’, English speakers naturally interpret this as referring to just some forest in general. This is especially true in the genre of fairy tales, where ‘deep in the forest’ is a common formulaic opening. If you had to ask me why, my best guess is that ‘forest’ is acting as a mass noun in this phrase, so it refers to an area covered in forest rather than a single, discrete forest. (Incidentally, this would also be why ‘a forest’ feels a bit odd to me: ‘forest’ can only be a count noun there, so it has to refer to one particular forest. But I will admit this explanation feels somewhat inadequate.)
• The usual word order would of course be ‘where a fair maiden lived’. Postposing the subject as you do feels really archaic, which is generally nice in fairy tales. To me it feels a bit better when that subject position contains something, which is why I’ve added ‘there’. (Compare the much more common construction used in the previous clause: ‘there was a tower’.) However, other people may differ in their tastes.
• Similar reasoning explains why ‘fair maiden’ is preferred over ‘pretty girl’: the former uses more archaic words. The particular phrase ‘fair maiden’ is also very common in fairy tales.

[azhong]

4. "There was a forest, deep in it a tower, where lived a fair maiden."

Not only is the fourth sentence non-idiomatic, it is also totally ungrammatical. The phrase ‘deep in it a tower’ is at fault here: there are situations where you can create a clause without a verb, but not very many of them, and they need quite a bit of context to be grammatical.

Thank you for your help, bradrn. Now I really want to ask a question seriously.
Q: Could you please show me a grammatical version with this without-a-verb pattern if it happens to occurs on you? Or just ignore my request.

Thank you.

[bradrn]

4. "There was a forest, deep in it a tower, where lived a fair maiden."

Not only is the fourth sentence non-idiomatic, it is also totally ungrammatical. The phrase ‘deep in it a tower’ is at fault here: there are situations where you can create a clause without a verb, but not very many of them, and they need quite a bit of context to be grammatical.

Thank you for your help, bradrn. Now I really want to ask a question seriously.
Q: Could you please show me a grammatical version with this without-a-verb pattern if it happens to occurs on you?

The first one that comes to mind is if you’re eliding repeated bits in a sentence: e.g. Above the forest was a cloud; deep in it was a tower could be modified to give something like Above the forest was a cloud; deep in it, a tower. But even this feels nearly incomprehensible to me, and quite formal in any case.

[azhong]

What if the sentence, a standing added? If it's grammatical, is it very formal or something? Thank you.

4.1 There was a forest, deep in it standing a tower, where lived a fair maiden.