The "How Do You Pronounce X" Thread

[Richard W]

I'm not a native speaker, but I'm pretty sure there's no "syllable final rhotic" in "various"? Mmm, checked Wiktionary, and it seems that the GenAm pronunciation has, weird. Anyway, like Wiktionary says, I'm 99% sure that the "r" in "various" is the onset of the second syllable in BrE, and there's an vowel following (not a /j/), although I think it's more like /ɪ/ than /i/.

You're talking about the trisyllabic pronunciation, not the bisyllabic pronunciation.

Of course, an alternative theory would be that the /r/ is the coda, and the /r/ heard in BrE is just a linking r .

While that has some plausibility for a trisyllabic pronunciation, that doesn't work for the bisyllabic pronunciation, unless you're going to claim that linking 'r' occurs before /j/.

[Richard W]

... while in rule /rul/ [ˈʁʷˤu(ː)ʊ̯] I do not even have a /j/ in the first place (like most present-day North Americans).

According to Wiktionary, Welsh English preserves /ɹɪu̯l/, but I think the /j/ has disappeared from rule for most British English speakers.

[bradrn]

Can you determine, with any kind of certainty, to which syllable an intervocalic consonant belongs?

Personally, I’ve come to think that syllables exist (at least in most languages), but syllable boundaries do not (except as theoretical constructs), so it’s impossible to determine which syllable an intervocalic consonant belongs to.

[Travis B.]

Can you determine, with any kind of certainty, to which syllable an intervocalic consonant belongs?

Personally, I’ve come to think that syllables exist (at least in most languages), but syllable boundaries do not (except as theoretical constructs), so it’s impossible to determine which syllable an intervocalic consonant belongs to.

To me there is a clear distinction between onset, ambisyllabic, and coda consonants, and many of the arbitrary syllable divisions people have tried to analyze are really cases of ambisyllabicity. However, there are also cases where entire consonant clusters at as being ambisyllabic as unitary wholes. This kind of view of things really works well for my own personal analysis of the English variety here, and NAE in general, where trying to force things into onset versus coda simply does not work out well.

[vlad]

How do you pronounce "various" and "rule"? I'm particularly curious as to whether non-rhotic speakers have a syllable final rhotic in the bisyllabic pronunciation or the first, or an onset /ɹj/. I'm not sure how one objectively distinguishes the two possibilities.

I don't have a bisyllabic pronunciation of "various". I suspect most non-rhotic speakers don't. /rj/ for me isn't possible, regardless of syllabification.

[Darren]

I see no barrier in my dialect at least to assigning codas to all lax (i.e. short) vowels. And then analyse long vowels as /Vɹ/ for obious reasons. And analyse diphthongs as Vj Vw. Boom! AusEng is Arrernte.

[jal]

You're talking about the trisyllabic pronunciation, not the bisyllabic pronunciation.

Yes, because I doubt there even is a bisyllabic pronunciation in BrE.


JAL

[Travis B.]

You're talking about the trisyllabic pronunciation, not the bisyllabic pronunciation.

Yes, because I doubt there even is a bisyllabic pronunciation in BrE.

One thing to note is that just because there is no initial */#rjV/ in most of modern-day EngE does not mean that there is no medial /VrjV/ therein. I note that in NAE /VCjV/ is allowed in very many cases where */#CjV/ is forbidden.

[Richard W]

You're talking about the trisyllabic pronunciation, not the bisyllabic pronunciation.

Yes, because I doubt there even is a bisyllabic pronunciation in BrE.

While listening out for a recording of the disyllabic pronunciation, in English indistinguishable from mine, I was struck by a similar pronunciation in English, which I can only reliably record phonemically - /ˈkɒrjəʊˌɡraːf/ choreograph, though that is a hot bed of neutralisations - /iː/ ~ /ɪ/ ~ /j/ and /əʊ/ ~ /ə/ (The latter is arguably just a phonological change - I don't have the distinct unstressed [o] allophone of /əʊ/). /kɒr/ is not a possible monosyllable, even before vowels.

[Travis B.]

You're talking about the trisyllabic pronunciation, not the bisyllabic pronunciation.

Yes, because I doubt there even is a bisyllabic pronunciation in BrE.

While listening out for a recording of the disyllabic pronunciation, in English indistinguishable from mine, I was struck by a similar pronunciation in English, which I can only reliably record phonemically - /ˈkɒrjəʊˌɡraːf/ choreograph, though that is a hot bed of neutralisations - /iː/ ~ /ɪ/ ~ /j/ and /əʊ/ ~ /ə/ (The latter is arguably just a phonological change - I don't have the distinct unstressed [o] allophone of /əʊ/). /kɒr/ is not a possible monosyllable, even before vowels.

The pronunciation I am used to for choreograph in NAE is /ˈkɔrjəˌɡræf/.

[Darren]

Not a specific word, but rather some phonemes. What specific articulation are your coronals? Maybe /r/ as well but that's barely coronal. I'd be interested in any languages, but primarily English. I've heard (IIRC) that the distribution between apical and laminal /s/ is random throughout dialects, but that sounds a bit suspect.

My /t d s z n l/ are all lamino-alveolar with the tongue tip resting behind the bottom teeth (or on the floor of the mouth). /t/ is an identical POA to /s/ – save for the latter being grooved (obviously) – such that [tʰ] is often realised as [t͡s] or [t͡θ̠̻] (not really sure if it's a sibilant or not). Intervocalic [ɾ] on the other hand can be apical postalveolar; when it's laminal it tends to be very faint, or disappear altogether (probably cause laminal taps are whacky). These are probably vaguely formality-conditioned.

And then /r/ is the same POA as /ʃ ʒ tʃ dʒ/, i.e. (sometimes spread-lip-rounded) laminal postalveolar. /r/ even tends to be further back, or at least have a longer area of near-contact articulation. I've seen English /r/ transcribed as [ɰ̟] before which I don't hate.

/θ ð/ are lamino-dental, as is /l/ sometimes for some reason. I don't know why /l/ likes to front or even really when. I guess it could be related to its velarisation (the tongue being only so flexible after all).

Bear in mind this is all hard to determine for sure, since thinking about it makes me second-guess myself. Either way I'd still be interested in your thoughts.

[Travis B.]

Not a specific word, but rather some phonemes. What specific articulation are your coronals? Maybe /r/ as well but that's barely coronal. I'd be interested in any languages, but primarily English. I've heard (IIRC) that the distribution between apical and laminal /s/ is random throughout dialects, but that sounds a bit suspect.

My /t d s z n l/ are all lamino-alveolar with the tongue tip resting behind the bottom teeth (or on the floor of the mouth). /t/ is an identical POA to /s/ – save for the latter being grooved (obviously) – such that [tʰ] is often realised as [t͡s] or [t͡θ̠̻] (not really sure if it's a sibilant or not). Intervocalic [ɾ] on the other hand can be apical postalveolar; when it's laminal it tends to be very faint, or disappear altogether (probably cause laminal taps are whacky). These are probably vaguely formality-conditioned.

And then /r/ is the same POA as /ʃ ʒ tʃ dʒ/, i.e. (sometimes spread-lip-rounded) laminal postalveolar. /r/ even tends to be further back, or at least have a longer area of near-contact articulation. I've seen English /r/ transcribed as [ɰ̟] before which I don't hate.

/θ ð/ are lamino-dental, as is /l/ sometimes for some reason. I don't know why /l/ likes to front or even really when. I guess it could be related to its velarisation (the tongue being only so flexible after all).

Bear in mind this is all hard to determine for sure, since thinking about it makes me second-guess myself. Either way I'd still be interested in your thoughts.

My syllable onset coronals aside from /θ ð/ are complex in their realization, and my /r l/ are not normally coronal (except for /r/ after a coronal where I have a coarticulated [ɻʁ]). They fall into three groups of realizations that pattern together, specifically non-palatalized, non-labialized palatalized, and labialized palatalized realizations. For such coronals where the coronals fall into the onset of an initial syllable /t d s z n tʃ dʒ ʃ ʒ/ I have the groups [t̻ʰ t̻~d̻ s̻ z̻ n̻ tʃ̻ʰ tʃ̻ ʃ̻ ʒ̻], [t̻ʲʰ~t̻s̻ʲʰ~tɕʰ t̻ʲ~d̻ʲ s̻ʲ z̻ʲ n̻ʲ tɕʰ tɕ ɕ ʑ] and [t̻ʲʷʰ~t̻s̻ʲʷʰ~tɕʷʰ t̻ʲʷ~d̻ʲʷ s̻ʲʷ z̻ʲʷ n̻ʲʷ tɕʷʰ tɕʷ ɕʷ ʑʷ]. These correspond to the default realizations, the realizations from being preceded by a sibilant, in the case of sibilants also following /k g r l/ in a coda, or followed by /ɜr~ər/, and the realizations from being followed by /w u ʊ/. Note that I normally have [t̻s̻ʲʰ] and [t̻s̻ʲʷʰ] rather than [tɕʰ] and [tɕʷʰ] for /t/ in the second and third sets, but there are many people here who have these rather than the former pair.

As for /θ ð/, in careful speech and intervocalically I have a laminal interdental fricative and an laminal dental fricative realization. However, initially I am apt to stop or affricate both of these, as a laminal dental stop or affricate and a laminal dentoalveolar or even alveolar stop respectively, in everyday speech. (My daughter though is liable to stop even intervocalic /ð/.)

[vlad]

Not a specific word, but rather some phonemes. What specific articulation are your coronals? Maybe /r/ as well but that's barely coronal. I'd be interested in any languages, but primarily English. I've heard (IIRC) that the distribution between apical and laminal /s/ is random throughout dialects, but that sounds a bit suspect.

I'm not at all certain about my pronunciation. I can tell if there are different allophones but I'm not sure how to describe them. These are just my best guesses.

My /t d s z n/ are lamino-alveolar. I don't think my /t/ is ever affricated. I think my [ɾ] is lamino-alveolar too.

/θ ð/ are apico-dental, and /t d n/ assimilate when preceding them.

/l/ is interdental. It assimilates to a preceding or following consonant within the same syllable (e.g. in slow and belt, /l/ becomes alveolar). But across a syllable boundary, the assimilation goes the other way (e.g. in butler, the /t/ becomes interdental).

/r/ has four different realizations:

• labiodentalized "bunched": word-initially, intervocalically before a stressed vowel, and when preceded by a non-postalveolar consonant (e.g. raw, arrange, angry)
• "bunched" without labiodentalization: intervocalically before an unstressed vowel (e.g. hurry, cleverer)
• labialized (rounded) retroflex: when preceded by a postalveolar consonant in an initial syllable or stressed syllable (e.g. shred, attract)
• retroflex without labialization: when preceded by a postalveolar consonant in a non-initial unstressed syllable (e.g. battery, mantra)

"Bunched" is something like [ɰ̟] with some kind of pharyngealization (?), but different from the pharyngealization that /l/ has (which has multiple flavors which I'm not going to attempt to describe).

My /ʃ ʒ tʃ dʒ/ are laminal postalveolar, with no labialization. They become retroflex before /r/ in the same syllable, and become labialized if /r/ is labialized. (The labialized allophones sound very distinct from the non-labialized ones.) They can also be retroflex before /r/ across a morpheme boundary, in which case the /r/ itself is not retroflex. /ʃ/ after /k/ is alveolo-palatal (e.g. action).

I'm not going to describe glottal reinforcement since the question seems to be primarily about tongue position.

[Travis B.]

/r/ has four different realizations:

• labiodentalized "bunched": word-initially, intervocalically before a stressed vowel, and when preceded by a non-postalveolar consonant (e.g. raw, arrange, angry)
• "bunched" without labiodentalization: intervocalically before an unstressed vowel (e.g. hurry, cleverer)
• labialized (rounded) retroflex: when preceded by a postalveolar consonant in an initial syllable or stressed syllable (e.g. shred, attract)
• retroflex without labialization: when preceded by a postalveolar consonant in a non-initial unstressed syllable (e.g. battery, mantra)

"Bunched" is something like [ɰ̟] with some kind of pharyngealization (?), but different from the pharyngealization that /l/ has (which has multiple flavors which I'm not going to attempt to describe).

This sounds similar to what I have, except I only labialize /r/ word-initially, and it is not labiodental per se, and my /r/'s seems to be more of a pharyngealized (except after coronals) uvular approximant (with postalveolar coarticulation after coronals) than a velar approximant.

I'm not going to describe glottal reinforcement since the question seems to be primarily about tongue position.

Glottal reinforcement for me applies to coda (and not intervocalic) fortis plosives and affricates. /t/ can be completely glottalized (except before sibilants), while in other cases they are merely preglottalized. One important note, however, is that /p t k/ before a sibilant before an unstressed vowel (e.g. to[ps]y, Na[ts]i, bo[ks]y does not pattern as a coda consonant but rather as part of an onset cluster in the following syllable and hence has no glottal reinforcement. (Note however to[ʔps], kno[ʔts], and bo[ʔksʲ].)

[foxcatdog]

I have a rhotic pronounciation of "Vehicles"

[jal]

I have a rhotic pronounciation of "Vehicles"

Veericles?


JAL

[bradrn]

I have a rhotic pronounciation of "Vehicles"

Veericles?

That would be my guess, at least in Australian English. I’ve noticed a few other cases of intrusive /r/ within a word, though I couldn’t tell you any off-hand.

[anteallach]

More likely "veerkles" I would have thought. It's one of those words where FLEECE+weak vowel sometimes compresses to [ɪə] or [ɪː], like idea or theatre; it is certainly bisyllabic for me. And you do sometimes get hyperrhoticity in those words.

[anteallach]

Not a specific word, but rather some phonemes. What specific articulation are your coronals? Maybe /r/ as well but that's barely coronal. I'd be interested in any languages, but primarily English. I've heard (IIRC) that the distribution between apical and laminal /s/ is random throughout dialects, but that sounds a bit suspect.

My impression of my speech is:

/t/ /d/ /n/ are apical alveolar, except that the "slit fricative" allophone of /t/ I sometimes use between vowels feels a little postalveolar.

/l/ is apical alveolar when "clear" but often dental (still usually apical I think) when "dark".

/s/ /z/ are laminal alveolar by default but assimilate easily so can also be apical.

/ʃ/ /ʒ/ are usually apical postalveolar and somewhat palatalised.

/tʃ/ /dʒ/ on the other hand are laminal postalveolar and are also somewhat palatalised, except before /r/. NB historic /tj/ and /dj/ appear to be in the process of merging with these but at least some of the time I seem to maintain some distinction by making them apical. (Exactly how consistent that is I don't know.)

/θ/ /ð/ are apical dental. The latter is usually an affricate in initial position.

/r/ is, of course, weird, with various co-articulations going on, but in syllable initial position its primary POA seems to be laminal postalveolar, like /tʃ/ and /dʒ/, but "flatter"/less palatalised. Post-tonically between vowels it seems to be more likely to be apical and the co-articulations are weaker.

[Space60]

How do you pronounce?

"want"
"wanna"
"wash"
"water"
"wasp"
"watch"
"watt"
"wand"
"wander"
"wallet"