English questions

[Travis B.]

I just found another word that behaves like federal, the name Frederick.

[Travis B.]

I am at my sister's in Illinois for Christmas, and I have noticed that my older nephew, who is 9, pronounces NURSE as [œ], such as in turn [tʰœ̃(ː)n]. This is an interesting innovation, particularly since Inland North varieties are firmly rhotic.

[Raphael]

Are there variants of British English that pronounce "v" as something closer to an "f"-like sound? (Sorry, I still haven't really gotten the hang of the IPA.)

[anteallach]

I am at my sister's in Illinois for Christmas, and I have noticed that my older nephew, who is 9, pronounces NURSE as [œ], such as in turn [tʰœ̃(ː)n]. This is an interesting innovation, particularly since Inland North varieties are firmly rhotic.

What happens to e.g. START and NORTH; do they retain a more usual rhotic pronunciation?

A new round of /r/-loss in AmE would seem quite a plausible sound change, especially given how cross-linguistically weird some American realisations of /r/ are.

[vlad]

Are there variants of British English that pronounce "v" as something closer to an "f"-like sound? (Sorry, I still haven't really gotten the hang of the IPA.)

Not to my knowledge.

[Raphael]

Are there variants of British English that pronounce "v" as something closer to an "f"-like sound? (Sorry, I still haven't really gotten the hang of the IPA.)

Not to my knowledge.

Thank you.

[anteallach]

How would one analyze intramorphemic exceptions to affrication of /dr/ in English dialects? I ask because the regular outcome of intramorphemic historical /dr/ and in some cases /d/ + /r/ across morpheme boundaries (e.g. bedroom for me personally) is to merge with a hypothetical /dʒr/ (i.e. in the dialect here as [tʃɻʁ]; note that [ɻʁ] is coarticulated, I couldn't create a tie bar for it) in many varieties of English outside conservative ideolects. However, certain words resist this even within morphemes, such as federal, where /dr/ does not undergo affrication (and in the dialect here often becomes a geminate [ʁˤː] in quick speech).

The immediate analysis one might come to is that federal has /dər/, as implied by the spelling, and the /ə/ inhibits affrication. However, the problem with this is that the realization [ɾə˞] (in GA) or [ɾʁ̩ˤːʁˤ] (in the dialect here) only surfaces in markedly careful speech (I personally find it quite unnatural myself). This implies that it is not synchronically /dər/ and realizations with /dər/ are under the influence of orthography.

However, the alternative analysis requires an intramorphemic /dr/ that inexplicably resists affrication while most cases of intramorphemic historical /dr/ have shifted to /dʒr/ outside conservative speech in a productive fashion (e.g. I find it very hard to create new words with intramorphemic [dɻʁ], with the regular outcome of borrowed or coined /dr/ being [tʃɻʁ]).

So how would you guys analyze these cases?

For me federal does have /dər/ in citation form, as does Frederick, and this is enough to block affrication even if the schwa is dropped. You say that the three syllable pronunciations of these aren't natural for you, but your dialect may be being influenced in some way by dialects where that isn't the case. In the other direction, I do have affrication in restaurant even though its citation form certainly has three syllables, and I think the obvious explanation for this is influence from dialects where the middle vowel is more likely to be dropped.

Speaking of the word natural, it's a good example of a word with /tʃr/ for me which doesn't come from affrication of /t/ before /r/. And yes the affricate is (I'm pretty sure) the same as the one in train; indeed from my pronunciation of the word alone it would be plausible that its earlier pronunciation was /'natrəl/.

[Travis B.]

For me federal does have /dər/ in citation form, as does Frederick, and this is enough to block affrication even if the schwa is dropped. You say that the three syllable pronunciations of these aren't natural for you, but your dialect may be being influenced in some way by dialects where that isn't the case. In the other direction, I do have affrication in restaurant even though its citation form certainly has three syllables, and I think the obvious explanation for this is influence from dialects where the middle vowel is more likely to be dropped.

There are many words where /t/ in /tərV/ (i.e. restaurant, many -tory and -tery words such as factory, history, mystery, directory, etc.) and some words where /t/ in /tərC/ (e.g. yesterday) or /tər#/ (e.g. sister, when I was younger also mister) have become both affricated and palatalized to [tɕ] for me (I also assimilate preceding /s/ to it as [ɕ], and in the case of yesterday I often assimilate the /st/ together as [ɕː] or even just [ɕ]). In these words I do not lose a syllable, unlike federal or Frederick. I suspect my realizations of these words are partly under the influence of dialects that do lose a syllable in the case of /tərV/ and partly due to that /ər/ palatalizes preceding alveolar and postalveolar consonants for me. Note that while I do not have it some people here also have affricates in initial /tər/ such as in turn and/or in initial /dər/ such as in directory (resulting in two affricates in that case).

Speaking of the word natural, it's a good example of a word with /tʃr/ for me which doesn't come from affrication of /t/ before /r/. And yes the affricate is (I'm pretty sure) the same as the one in train; indeed from my pronunciation of the word alone it would be plausible that its earlier pronunciation was /'natrəl/.

I regularly have affricates in cases of unstressed historical /tjV/ such as -tu- words like natural, and to my knowledge this is the case for the vast majority of modern English-speakers.

[anteallach]

Speaking of the word natural, it's a good example of a word with /tʃr/ for me which doesn't come from affrication of /t/ before /r/. And yes the affricate is (I'm pretty sure) the same as the one in train; indeed from my pronunciation of the word alone it would be plausible that its earlier pronunciation was /'natrəl/.

I regularly have affricates in cases of unstressed historical /tjV/ such as -tu- words like natural, and to my knowledge this is the case for the vast majority of modern English-speakers.

I know. The point is that in my speech the vowel after the older /tj/ there has been lost, producing /tʃr/, and that that is, as far as I can tell, indistinguishable from what I would have had the older form been /'natrəl/.

[Travis B.]

Speaking of the word natural, it's a good example of a word with /tʃr/ for me which doesn't come from affrication of /t/ before /r/. And yes the affricate is (I'm pretty sure) the same as the one in train; indeed from my pronunciation of the word alone it would be plausible that its earlier pronunciation was /'natrəl/.

I regularly have affricates in cases of unstressed historical /tjV/ such as -tu- words like natural, and to my knowledge this is the case for the vast majority of modern English-speakers.

I know. The point is that in my speech the vowel after the older /tj/ there has been lost, producing /tʃr/, and that that is, as far as I can tell, indistinguishable from what I would have had the older form been /'natrəl/.

I can force that vowel to disappear in natural, but it does not feel, well, natural to me.

[Travis B.]

Question -- do speakers of the varieties with surviving front-to-back diphthongs in words like natural, such as some Welsh English varieties, have affrication in such words?

[Travis B.]

I am at my sister's in Illinois for Christmas, and I have noticed that my older nephew, who is 9, pronounces NURSE as [œ], such as in turn [tʰœ̃(ː)n]. This is an interesting innovation, particularly since Inland North varieties are firmly rhotic.

What happens to e.g. START and NORTH; do they retain a more usual rhotic pronunciation?

I don't know off-hand; I didn't manage to catch how he pronounced those, and I didn't feel like testing him (and he probably wouldn't cooperate if I did).

A new round of /r/-loss in AmE would seem quite a plausible sound change, especially given how cross-linguistically weird some American realisations of /r/ are.

I do have to say that my own NURSE/lettER is in many ways pretty vocalic; even though I transcribe it the same as my most usual /r/ allophone, except with a syllabic diacritic underneath, it is more open than it. I could see a similar phone getting learned by younger generations as a rounded mid front vowel (even though the phone I personally have has no front component at all).

[Darren]

There is a correlation between rhoticity and front-roundedness in terms of F3 – that's what triggers the /ɐɻʲʷ/ realisation of GOAT in some dialects of AusEng – so while it's got no "front" component it's acoustically close.

[Travis B.]

There is a correlation between rhoticity and front-roundedness in terms of F3 – that's what triggers the /ɐɻʲʷ/ realisation of GOAT in some dialects of AusEng – so while it's got no "front" component it's acoustically close.

Is that in hiatus (i.e. intrusive-r) or is it a new coda rhotic being innovated in some varieties of AusE?

I should also note that at least in the dialect here, NURSE/lettER does trigger palatalization of preceding alveolar and postalveolar consonants, so getting from there to a rounded front vowel is not too much of a stretch...

[Darren]

There is a correlation between rhoticity and front-roundedness in terms of F3 – that's what triggers the /ɐɻʲʷ/ realisation of GOAT in some dialects of AusEng – so while it's got no "front" component it's acoustically close.

Is that in hiatus (i.e. intrusive-r) or is it a new coda rhotic being innovated in some varieties of AusE?

A new coda rhotic, ironically excluded from hiatus (e.g. know [ˈnɐˑɻʲʷ] vs. Noah [ˈnɐu̯ɜ]). It's fairly restricted (I've only ever heard it from younger women from the East) and also quite stigmatised. The GenAus realisation of GOAT is [ɐy̯] (or [ɐu̯] in most hiatus or before /l/).

[Travis B.]

The wiki claims that AmE uniformly doesn't have h-dropping. However, in the dialect here h-dropping is very common in grammar words, even when stressed. For instanced, stressed have may be pronounced as /æv/ [ɛːf], [ɛːv] before a vowel or semivowel. Note that this does not apply to content words, where /h/ is generally preserved except in the small set of words where NAE as a whole never has had /h/, such as herb (excluding the name Herb), or where /h/ is a spelling pronunciation, such as in vehicle. Is anyone familiar with any other English variety with different fates of /h/ between stressed grammar words and content words?

[Travis B.]

I have noticed that many people here often realize /nd/ between vowels where the following vowel is unstressed as a geminate [nː] where I either preserve [nd], reduce it to [n], or elide it. (This results in /nd/ and /dn/ in this position frequently being contrasted only by the nasalization of the preceding vowel and vowel coloring by postvocalic /d/.) Does anyone else have this in their English varieties?

[Lērisama]

I have noticed that many people here often realize /nd/ between vowels where the following vowel is unstressed as a geminate [nː] where I either preserve [nd], reduce it to [n], or elide it. (This results in /nd/ and /dn/ in this position frequently being contrasted only by the nasalization of the preceding vowel and vowel coloring by postvocalic /d/.) Does anyone else have this in their English varieties?

I have [nː] for both /nt/ and /nd/ when imitating/exaggerating a stereotypical¹ American accent.

¹ For a Brit. I have no idea what it would sound like to an American. Probably terrible

[Travis B.]

I have noticed that many people here often realize /nd/ between vowels where the following vowel is unstressed as a geminate [nː] where I either preserve [nd], reduce it to [n], or elide it. (This results in /nd/ and /dn/ in this position frequently being contrasted only by the nasalization of the preceding vowel and vowel coloring by postvocalic /d/.) Does anyone else have this in their English varieties?

I have [nː] for both /nt/ and /nd/ when imitating/exaggerating a stereotypical¹ American accent.

¹ For a Brit. I have no idea what it would sound like to an American. Probably terrible

The classic American realization of /nt/ between vowels where the following vowel is unstressed is a nasal flap [ɾ̃]. Some people have a contrast with /n/ in pairs like winter and winner where [ɾ̃] is distinguished from [n] (I distinguish the two words by vowel length even though I either merge /nt/ and /n/ in these words as [ɾ̃] or elide them in both).

[zompist]

The classic American realization of /nt/ between vowels where the following vowel is unstressed is a nasal flap [ɾ̃]. Some people have a contrast with /n/ in pairs like winter and winner where [ɾ̃] is distinguished from [n] (I distinguish the two words by vowel length even though I either merge /nt/ and /n/ in these words as [ɾ̃] or elide them in both).

Wow, not for me— I have [wɪ̃tr̩], without even voicing the t.

Do you also have [ɾ̃] in banter, painter?

How about accountant? Here I have something like [əkãwʔn̩ʔ].