English questions

[vlad]

When people speak of "diphthongization of high long vowels" I always had thought of them as [ɪj] and [ʊw], i.e. only lightly diphthongized. (I only diphthongize mine when I have /uː/ after a coronal/palatal and before a dorsal, as [yu].)

There's register-related alternation; careful [ɪi̯ ʊʉ̯] ranging to casual [əi̯ əy̯]. In unstressed syllables (happY) you might find [ɪi̯] or perhaps even [i], but always [əj] before a vowel ([ˌhæpʰəjɜzˈɫʷæɻɪi̯]). "to" and "gonna" both end in [ɜ] in normal unstressed position, but [əw] (or ?[əɻʷ]) before a vowel; likewise "the" is [ðɜ], [ðəj] (but never *[ðɜɻʷ]).

My FLEECE and GOOSE vowels are pretty centralized, but not all the way to schwa. FLEECE has spread lips and GOOSE has rounded lips. And happY is consistently [ɪj] (or maybe [ij]?), even before vowels.

FOOT [ʊ] vs. NORTH/THOUGHT/FORCE/CURE [ʊː]

You really have [ʊː] for NORTH/THOUGHT/FORCE? For me, full [fʊl] and fool [fʊːl] are a minimal pair for vowel length, in contrast to fall [foːl]. Do you merge fool and fall? (Though now that I think of it, some people have the LOT vowel in fall, so maybe that's how they're distinguished.)

[Travis B.]

I think I had thought AusE was more normal than it actually is... I had really thought it was relatively close to SSBE aside from having a somewhat closer THOUGHT/NORTH/FORCE/CURE, a more open STRUT and a central START/PALM/BATH that only contrasted in quantity, and a quantity contrast between LAD and BAD.

[Darren]

You really have [ʊː] for NORTH/THOUGHT/FORCE? For me, full [fʊl] and fool [fʊːl] are a minimal pair for vowel length, in contrast to fall [foːl]. Do you merge fool and fall? (Though now that I think of it, some people have the LOT vowel in fall, so maybe that's how they're distinguished.)

Yes, "fool" and "fall" are merged as [fʊːɫʷ]. Likewise "doll" and "dole" are both [dɔu̯ɫʷ]. On the other hand, "Hal" and "hell" are distinct [ˈhæɫʷ] vs. [ˈheɫʷ], when they're merged by people in M[æ]lbourne.

[Travis B.]

Yes, "fool" and "fall" are merged as [fʊːɫʷ]. Likewise "doll" and "dole" are both [dɔu̯ɫʷ].

Wow. Here no vowels are merged as a result of l-vocalization, and even /oʊ/ [o̞]~[ɵ̞] and /oʊl/ [o̞ʊ̯] (always back even after coronals) are kept apart (even when an offglide is added to /oʊ/ word-finally or before another vowel, it is [w] and is fully rounded, whereas the offglide from /l/ is not as strongly rounded and is more open).

[Travis B.]

Does anyone else have a contrast between what can be best described as /ar/ and /ɑr/ from historical /ɔːlr/ and /ɒr/ respectively in their dialects? In conservative pronunciation my dialect /ɔːlr/ is [ɒo̯ʁˤ], and in less conservative but still conservative-ish pronunciation such as my own for this it is [ɒʁˤ]. However, many people here have [aʁˤ] which contrasts with [ɑʁˤ] from /ɒr/ (e.g. all right [aːˈʁˤə̆ĕ̯ʔ(t)] and already [aːˈʁˤɜːɾi(ː)]~[aːˈʁˤɜːːj] versus tomorrow [tʰə̃ːˈmɑːʁo̞(ː)(w)]~[ɾə̃ːˈmɑːʁˤo̞(ː)(w)] and sorrow [ˈsɑːʁˤo̞(ː)(w)]), even though people sometimes shift /ɔːlr/ in the opposite direction to [ɔʁˤ].

[zompist]

Does anyone else have a contrast between what can be best described as /ar/ and /ɑr/ from historical /ɔːlr/ and /ɒr/ respectively in their dialects? In conservative pronunciation my dialect /ɔːlr/ is [ɒo̯ʁˤ], and in less conservative but still conservative-ish pronunciation such as my own for this it is [ɒʁˤ]. However, many people here have [aʁˤ] which contrasts with [ɑʁˤ] from /ɒr/ (e.g. all right [aːˈʁˤə̆ĕ̯ʔ(t)] and already [aːˈʁˤɜːɾi(ː)]~[aːˈʁˤɜːːj] versus tomorrow [tʰə̃ːˈmɑːʁo̞(ː)(w)]~[ɾə̃ːˈmɑːʁˤo̞(ː)(w)] and sorrow [ˈsɑːʁˤo̞(ː)(w)]), even though people sometimes shift /ɔːlr/ in the opposite direction to [ɔʁˤ].

If I'm following, you're saying that the already/tomorrow contrast becomes one of backing alone in Milwaukee, while the standard involves rounding, and backing in the opposite direction— /ɔl/ vs. /a/.

FWIW I have /ɔ/ vs. /a/.

[Travis B.]

Does anyone else have a contrast between what can be best described as /ar/ and /ɑr/ from historical /ɔːlr/ and /ɒr/ respectively in their dialects? In conservative pronunciation my dialect /ɔːlr/ is [ɒo̯ʁˤ], and in less conservative but still conservative-ish pronunciation such as my own for this it is [ɒʁˤ]. However, many people here have [aʁˤ] which contrasts with [ɑʁˤ] from /ɒr/ (e.g. all right [aːˈʁˤə̆ĕ̯ʔ(t)] and already [aːˈʁˤɜːɾi(ː)]~[aːˈʁˤɜːːj] versus tomorrow [tʰə̃ːˈmɑːʁo̞(ː)(w)]~[ɾə̃ːˈmɑːʁˤo̞(ː)(w)] and sorrow [ˈsɑːʁˤo̞(ː)(w)]), even though people sometimes shift /ɔːlr/ in the opposite direction to [ɔʁˤ].

If I'm following, you're saying that the already/tomorrow contrast becomes one of backing alone in Milwaukee, while the standard involves rounding, and backing in the opposite direction— /ɔl/ vs. /a/.

FWIW I have /ɔ/ vs. /a/.

It's very counterintuitive. I personally have [ɒ] versus [ɑ] most of the time in these words. What I am thinking is that the /l/ protects the THOUGHT from the backing influence of the /r/ as seen with LOT before it, and it irregularly becomes [a] for reasons I have not gathered in many people's speech here. (Incidentally, these are the only cases I am aware of of THOUGHT becoming [a] in the dialect here aside from an irregular change of okay which undergoes GOAT [o̞] > THOUGHT [ɒ] > LOT [a] at times.)

[Darren]

Does anyone else have a contrast between what can be best described as /ar/ and /ɑr/ from historical /ɔːlr/ and /ɒr/ respectively in their dialects? In conservative pronunciation my dialect /ɔːlr/ is [ɒo̯ʁˤ], and in less conservative but still conservative-ish pronunciation such as my own for this it is [ɒʁˤ]. However, many people here have [aʁˤ] which contrasts with [ɑʁˤ] from /ɒr/ (e.g. all right [aːˈʁˤə̆ĕ̯ʔ(t)] and already [aːˈʁˤɜːɾi(ː)]~[aːˈʁˤɜːːj] versus tomorrow [tʰə̃ːˈmɑːʁo̞(ː)(w)]~[ɾə̃ːˈmɑːʁˤo̞(ː)(w)] and sorrow [ˈsɑːʁˤo̞(ː)(w)]), even though people sometimes shift /ɔːlr/ in the opposite direction to [ɔʁˤ].

That is, all of it, heinous.

Incidentally, I have [ʊːˈɻʷɑe̯ʔ(t)] vs. [tˢɜˈmäɻʷɜy̯]

[Raphael]

A footnote in Bret Devereaux's latest blog post ( https://acoup.blog/2024/11/22/fireside- ... nventions/ ) says the following:

It’s likely most sling bullets were always stone, but it is really hard to tell a stone sling bullet from, you know, a smooth rock. Because it’s a smooth rock.

Which makes me wonder: what exactly is the difference between a rock and a stone?

[Travis B.]

A footnote in Bret Devereaux's latest blog post ( https://acoup.blog/2024/11/22/fireside- ... nventions/ ) says the following:

It’s likely most sling bullets were always stone, but it is really hard to tell a stone sling bullet from, you know, a smooth rock. Because it’s a smooth rock.

Which makes me wonder: what exactly is the difference between a rock and a stone?

Stones tend to be smallish and are often somewhat rounded. Rocks are a more general category. All stones are rocks but not vice versa. As mass nouns, though, both refer to materials and are roughly synonymous.

[Raphael]

Thank you!

[willm]

I don't think there is a difference in denotation between "rock" and "stone". "Rock" is maybe slightly lower in register than "stone"; in the quote from Bret Devereaux "rock" sounds kind of dismissive in a way "stone" wouldn't. I would guess that "rock" is somewhat more common, at least in speech. "Stone" is usual for the adjectival meaning "made of rock/stone" (which is how Devereaux is using it in both occurrences).

[willm]

A footnote in Bret Devereaux's latest blog post ( https://acoup.blog/2024/11/22/fireside- ... nventions/ ) says the following:

It’s likely most sling bullets were always stone, but it is really hard to tell a stone sling bullet from, you know, a smooth rock. Because it’s a smooth rock.

Which makes me wonder: what exactly is the difference between a rock and a stone?

Stones tend to be smallish and are often somewhat rounded. Rocks are a more general category. All stones are rocks but not vice versa. As mass nouns, though, both refer to materials and are roughly synonymous.

Oh, that's true. The ideal stone is rounded and the ideal rock is irregular or rough. I don't think that's necessarily the case, though.

[Lērisama]

Not actually related to the question, but I'd like to say that looks like a lovely blog, thanks for pointing it out to me. I did have things to say, and I even wrote them up, but I pressed preview and got the other people have replied message, and willm and Travis B had said it all

[Raphael]

Not actually related to the question, but I'd like to say that looks like a lovely blog, thanks for pointing it out to me.

You're welcome!

[Travis B.]

I don't think there is a difference in denotation between "rock" and "stone". "Rock" is maybe slightly lower in register than "stone"; in the quote from Bret Devereaux "rock" sounds kind of dismissive in a way "stone" wouldn't. I would guess that "rock" is somewhat more common, at least in speech. "Stone" is usual for the adjectival meaning "made of rock/stone" (which is how Devereaux is using it in both occurrences).

"Rock" implies raw material that is unpolished, unworn, uncut. Individual stones are worn down, typically by water, whereas a "rock" does imply a rough piece of material. When you say something is made out of "stone", you imply that it is cut, and something like a "stone" countertop is normally polished. When you say that something is made out of "rock" you strongly imply that it is raw material from the earth.

[Raphael]

When you say something is made out of "stone", you imply that it is cut, and something like a "stone" countertop is normally polished. When you say that something is made out of "rock" you strongly imply that it is raw material from the earth.

Ah, I guess that's why it's not called "Rockhenge".

[zompist]

"Rock" implies raw material that is unpolished, unworn, uncut. Individual stones are worn down, typically by water, whereas a "rock" does imply a rough piece of material. When you say something is made out of "stone", you imply that it is cut, and something like a "stone" countertop is normally polished. When you say that something is made out of "rock" you strongly imply that it is raw material from the earth.

I agree that rocks go with rough, natural, and big. But stones can be natural (uncut)-- e.g. stones worn smooth by water.

[bradrn]

Moving into more technical language, in my experience I’ve invariably seen geologists talking about ‘rocks’ (though more usually they’ll use the name the specific rock type). The word ‘stone’ sometimes crops up as part of compounds, like ‘cobblestone’, but never otherwise.