The "How Do You Pronounce X" Thread

[Lērisama]

I have [θɪ̆ŋk̚ θɐ̆ŋk̚ sɪ̆ŋk θăŋk] for think, thunk (I was trying to get a range of vowels. And it is part of my ideolect (jokingly)), sink, thank. I think your childrens' primary school is just wrong (or more likely, they introduced this because a few people started writing something like ⟨thingk⟩, and they only know of one way to teach two letters that do something 'unexpected' together)

[evmdbm]

I have [θɪ̆ŋk̚ θɐ̆ŋk̚ sɪ̆ŋk θăŋk] for think, thunk (I was trying to get a range of vowels. And it is part of my ideolect (jokingly)), sink, thank. I think your childrens' primary school is just wrong (or more likely, they introduced this because a few people started writing something like ⟨thingk⟩, and they only know of one way to teach two letters that do something 'unexpected' together)

It is apparently all part of a properly researched method of phonics teaching called Read Write Inc. It sort of doesn't matter because they're going to learn to put the letters together anyhow, but I'm glad it's not just me who thinks "Eh"!

[Travis B.]

I have [θɪ̈̃ʔk θʌ̃ʔk sɪ̈̃ʔk θẽ̞ʔk], with [t̪] being an allophone of initial /θ/. (I do have thunk in my lect as a specialized computer science word rather than as passive/past participle of think.) However I have [ˈθɪ̈̃ŋ.kɘ̃(ː)ŋ] and [ˈsɪ̈̃ŋ.kɘ̃(ː)ŋ] (and -[ɘ̃(ː)(n)]) not *[ˈθɪ̈̃ʔkɘ̃(ː)ŋ] or *[ˈsɪ̈̃ʔkɘ̃(ː)ŋ]; this is sensitive to syllable boundaries for me, as the /k/ syllabifies to the next syllable if an affix beginning with a vowel is attached, which inhibits preglottalization and nasal elision.

[jal]

It's still two sounds

Obviously. And whether it's actual allophony in words like "think" is debatable, as /ŋ/ is a phoneme. In Slavic languages it obviously is, appearing only before /k/ or /g/, so much so that many speakers of Slavic language can't manage to pronounce /ŋ/ without a plosive release


JAL

[Travis B.]

Does anyone else have Star Tr/æ/k? Note that for me it is [ɛ], but if it were /ɛ/ then it would be [ɜ] not [ɛ]. (This is similar to how the dialect here has k/æ/tchup with [ɛ], not /ɛ/ with [ɜ].)

[Nortaneous]

coyote

[foxcatdog]

coyote

[kaɪ.joʊ.teɪ]

[jal]

I follow BrE here, so I have /ɔ/.


JAL

[Darren]

[kˣɑe̯ˈjɔy̯ɾəi̯]

[Lērisama]

I follow BrE here, so I have /ɔ/.

I thought you meant LOT in the second syllable, and got very confused. For what it's worth, I have /kʰaˈjəwtʰɪj/, probably because I think I've only, or mostly, heard Americans say it, because it's not native here.

[Travis B.]

[kʰae̯ˈjo̞ɾi(ː)]

[Linguoboy]

/ˈkaɪ.joʊt/

[zompist]

[kʰae̯ˈjo̞ɾi(ː)]

Probably the same, though I'd just write [ka jo ɾi].

[jal]

I thought you meant LOT in the second syllable, and got very confused.

Wel, LOT would be /ɒ/ in BrE, so no confusion possible


JAL

[Lērisama]

I thought you meant LOT in the second syllable, and got very confused.

Wel, LOT would be /ɒ/ in BrE, so no confusion possible

My lot is [ɔ] though . And, more importantly, I hear Vowel+semivowel as a diphthong, even across a syllable boundary, so I expected /ɔɪ/, rather than /ɔ/ (really [ɔj], unless you're the Queen¹, on British Pathé², an exam invigilator, or in the RAF in WWII, but what can I say; it's tradition³)


¹ the real one, not the current one
² the brand the government used for its propaganda. I think it lasted up into the 60s
³ imagine this as from the Fiddler on the Roof song

[Travis B.]

[kʰae̯ˈjo̞ɾi(ː)]

Probably the same, though I'd just write [ka jo ɾi].

I distinctly perceive it as having a diphthong phoneme in the first syllable followed by a semivowel in the second syllable rather than as having a monophthong phoneme in the first syllable. In this way it is like lawyer /ˈlɔɪjər/ [ˈʟ̞ɔɪ̯jʁ̩ˤ(ː)] where I perceive it as having a diphthong phoneme followed by /j/. Also note that I have a phonemic contrast between /aɪV/ [ae̯V] and /aɪjV/ [ae̯jV]; consider the case of Gaia /ˈɡaɪə/ [ˈɡ̥ae̯ə(ː)], which lacks a /j/ [j].

Note that I have a bit of free variation in this word, because while the pronunciation I gave is the one I'd give if you just asked me to say the word coyote, in practice I also have the pronunciation [kʰəe̯ˈjo̞ɾi(ː)].

(Edit: I also have a phonemic contrast between /ɔɪV/ [ɔɪ̯V] and /ɔɪjV/ [ɔɪ̯jV/, e.g. I have soya /ˈsɔɪə/ [ˈsɔɪ̯ə(ː)] and Goya /ˈɡɔɪə/ [ˈɡ̥ɔɪ̯ə(ː)].)

[jal]

My lot is [ɔ] though

Interesting, didn't know that there were varieties of BrE that had such a high LOT. Does it merge with COT and/or CAUGHT?

And, more importantly, I hear Vowel+semivowel as a diphthong, even across a syllable boundary

But wouldn't the first <o> be reduced to schwa or some rounded variant, and hence not be perceived as diphthong?


JAL

[Travis B.]

My lot is [ɔ] though

Interesting, didn't know that there were varieties of BrE that had such a high LOT. Does it merge with COT and/or CAUGHT?

Note that cot as in cot-caught is LOT. The use of a different word for cot-caught is just to illustrate the merger.

[Travis B.]

And, more importantly, I hear Vowel+semivowel as a diphthong, even across a syllable boundary

But wouldn't the first <o> be reduced to schwa or some rounded variant, and hence not be perceived as diphthong?

In GA the first <o> in coyote comes from LOT, and regardless of whether one considers it as becoming a phonemic diphthong or not, it is not reduced to schwa in GA, so I would not assume that it would necessarily be reduced to schwa in a given EngE variety either.

[Lērisama]

My lot is [ɔ] though

Interesting, didn't know that there were varieties of BrE that had such a high LOT. Does it merge with COT and/or CAUGHT?

Yes, there are – it's quite common. A low LOT sounds quite old fashioned now. As Travis said, COT is LOT, but if you meant CLOTH, then yes, it does merge (or never split in the first place. My dialect is quite conservative with vowel length; it would surprise me if the same vowel lengthened and then shortened)

And, more importantly, I hear Vowel+semivowel as a diphthong, even across a syllable boundary

But wouldn't the first <o> be reduced to schwa or some rounded variant, and hence not be perceived as diphthong?

Unstressed lax vowels are reduced, but unstressed diphthongs and long vowels¹ in hiatus aren't, so it's the opposite: the lack of reduction is what makes it be parsed as a diphthong. I can't tbink of any /ə.j ɪ.w/ (the unallowed diphthongs. /əw/ is GOAT and /ɪj/ is FLEECE) off the top of my head, so it is possible that I got PRICE from hearing /kʰɔˈjəwtʰɪj/ [kʰəˈjəwtʰɪj] as /kʰajˈəwtʰɪj/, but I suspect it not being a common word over here is the better explaination

¹ You could probably analyse long vowels as /Vɹ/. They pattern like diphthongs, and it would sanify the vowel system to /a ʌ ɛ ɪ ɔ ɵ ə/ + length and various diphthongs