English questions

[Travis B.]

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.

When speaking carefully I may pronounce winter as [ˈwɪ̈̃nˌtʲʰʁ̩ˤ(ː)]. The key word, though, is 'carefully'.

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

Yes.

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

When speaking normally I pronounce it as [{ə,ɘ}ˈkʰɑ̃̆ɔ̯̆̃ʔn̩ʔ]. (When speaking carefully I may pronounce it [əˈkʰɑ̃̆ɔ̯̆̃nˌtʰɪ̈̃ʔt].) The double-glottal-stop pronunciation is probably due to the second /n/.

[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.

When speaking carefully I may pronounce winter as [ˈwɪ̈̃nˌtʲʰʁ̩ˤ(ː)]. The key word, though, is 'carefully'.

On reflection, I can say it with [ɾ̃] too. The [wɪ̃tr̩] pronunciation is more likely if it's stressed.

[Man in Space]

On reflection, I can say it with [ɾ̃] too. The [wɪ̃tr̩] pronunciation is more likely if it's stressed.

Same here. I generally say winterize with [ɾ̃] unless I'm being very deliberate (like if I'm repeating myself to one of my family members).

[Raphael]

What is the usual way to pronounce year numbers from the 12th or 13th century, such as "1148" or "1273"? I mean in terms of syllables, not phonemes.

[bradrn]

What is the usual way to pronounce year numbers from the 12th or 13th century, such as "1148" or "1273"? I mean in terms of syllables, not phonemes.

I think I would usually say ‘eleven-forty-eight’ and ‘twelve-seventy-three’. For that matter, I also say ‘twenty-twenty-five’, but ‘two thousand and five’: the range of ’two thousand and ___’ extends from 2000 to around 2015, I think.

[Raphael]

Thank you!

[Lērisama]

What is the usual way to pronounce year numbers from the 12th or 13th century, such as "1148" or "1273"? I mean in terms of syllables, not phonemes.

I think I would usually say ‘eleven-forty-eight’ and ‘twelve-seventy-three’. For that matter, I also say ‘twenty-twenty-five’, but ‘two thousand and five’: the range of ’two thousand and ___’ extends from 2000 to around 2015, I think.

The same here, although the crossover is ‘twenty-ten’ (as opposed to ‘two thousand and nine’). I do have ‘twelve-oh-five’ etc. for all the other first decades of each century, at least back to 1101 ‘eleven-oh-one’. Before that, just reading it as if it were a number becomes more common

[Travis B.]

What is the usual way to pronounce year numbers from the 12th or 13th century, such as "1148" or "1273"? I mean in terms of syllables, not phonemes.

I think I would usually say ‘eleven-forty-eight’ and ‘twelve-seventy-three’. For that matter, I also say ‘twenty-twenty-five’, but ‘two thousand and five’: the range of ’two thousand and ___’ extends from 2000 to around 2015, I think.

I am pretty much the same here.

[Raphael]

Thank you two, too!

[Linguoboy]

I often count to put myself to sleep, varying the base for my own diversion, and so I've thought a lot about the oddities in how English-speakers speak numbers aloud. Like how when counting by hundreds we switch to thousands for the tens but when speaking years aloud, we can use decads as long we drop the "hundred". So:

...
eighteen-hundred
nineteen-hundred
two thousand
twenty-one hundred
...

but: "twenty ten" for 2010 as a year is fine.

I would understand "twenty-hundred" in context, but it's so jarring.

[Travis B.]

I mentioned before how I have partial non-rhoticism in order. Well, this appears to be a regular pattern with START and NORTH/FORCE:

order: [ˈɔːːɾʁ̩ˤ(ː)]
quarter: [ˈkʷʰw̥ɔːɾʁ̩ˤ(ː)]
corner: [ˈkʰɔ̃ːːɾ̃ʁ̩ˤ(ː)]
porter: [ˈpʰɔːɾʁ̩ˤ(ː)]
Carter: [ˈkʰɑːɾʁ̩ˤ(ː)]
barter: [ˈb̥ɑːɾʁ̩ˤ(ː)]
martyr: [ˈmɑːɾʁ̩ˤ(ː)]
cartridge: [ˈkʰɑːtʃɹ̠ʁɘːtʃ]
partridge: [ˈpʰɑːtʃɹ̠ʁɘːtʃ]

Note how START contrasts with LOT as in:
cotter (as in cotter pin): [ˈkʰaɾʁ̩ˤ(ː)]

and with THOUGHT as in:
daughter: [ˈd̥ɒɾʁ̩ˤ(ː)]~[d̥ɒːʁˤ]

I have not noticed this particular pattern except with START and NORTH/FORCE, where not only is the first rhotic elided but compensatory lengthening occurs and r-coloring is retained. This ensures that no mergers occur because of this. Also note how raising of START before fortis obstruents is blocked by this.

[Darren]

I remember seeing this mentioned someone in a book, where a fronted GOAT /ɵ/ was distinct dissimilated rhotic FORCE /o/ e.g. corporation /kopəˈreʃən/ vs. cooperation /kɵapəˈreʃən/.

[Travis B.]

I remember seeing this mentioned someone in a book, where a fronted GOAT /ɵ/ was distinct dissimilated rhotic FORCE /o/ e.g. corporation /kopəˈreʃən/ vs. cooperation /kɵapəˈreʃən/.

I forgot to mention that order and odor are distinguished, with order being [ˈɔːːɾʁ̩ˤ(ː)] (as mentioned) and odor being [ˈo̞ːɾʁ̩ˤ(ː)].

[Raphael]

I forgot to mention that order and odor are distinguished,

Reading this, at first, without context, I got a horrifying mental image of a dystopian future where the authorities enforce order through the use of distinctive odors.

[Travis B.]

I forgot to mention that order and odor are distinguished,

Reading this, at first, without context, I got a horrifying mental image of a dystopian future where the authorities enforce order through the use of distinctive odors.

That is a... well... interesting thought, for certain values of interesting...

[Travis B.]

I remember seeing this mentioned someone in a book, where a fronted GOAT /ɵ/ was distinct dissimilated rhotic FORCE /o/ e.g. corporation /kopəˈreʃən/ vs. cooperation /kɵapəˈreʃən/.

One thing to note here is that it is common in NAE or the first vowel in cooperation to undergo reduction with breaking (i.e. the insertion of [w] into the hiatus), which may be followed in quick speech with elision of the first schwa. For instance, in the dialect here cooperation is [kʰəːˌwɑpʁ̩ˤːˈʁˤe̞ʃɘ̃(ː)(n)] or [ˌkʷʰw̥ɑpʁ̩ˤːˈʁˤe̞ʃɘ̃(ː)(n)] though the initial vowel is not in an environment where it normally undergoes fronting in the dialect here. As a result there are probably better word pairs to demonstrate this.

[Darren]

I remember seeing this mentioned someone in a book, where a fronted GOAT /ɵ/ was distinct dissimilated rhotic FORCE /o/ e.g. corporation /kopəˈreʃən/ vs. cooperation /kɵapəˈreʃən/.

One thing to note here is that it is common in NAE or the first vowel in cooperation to undergo reduction with breaking (i.e. the insertion of [w] into the hiatus), which may be followed in quick speech with elision of the first schwa. For instance, in the dialect here cooperation is [kʰəːˌwɑpʁ̩ˤːˈʁˤe̞ʃɘ̃(ː)(n)] or [ˌkʷʰw̥ɑpʁ̩ˤːˈʁˤe̞ʃɘ̃(ː)(n)] though the initial vowel is not in an environment where it normally undergoes fronting in the dialect here. As a result there are probably better word pairs to demonstrate this.

Yes, but I couldn't think of any, and the FORCE lexical set is impenetrable to me anyway.

[Travis B.]

I remember seeing this mentioned someone in a book, where a fronted GOAT /ɵ/ was distinct dissimilated rhotic FORCE /o/ e.g. corporation /kopəˈreʃən/ vs. cooperation /kɵapəˈreʃən/.

One thing to note here is that it is common in NAE or the first vowel in cooperation to undergo reduction with breaking (i.e. the insertion of [w] into the hiatus), which may be followed in quick speech with elision of the first schwa. For instance, in the dialect here cooperation is [kʰəːˌwɑpʁ̩ˤːˈʁˤe̞ʃɘ̃(ː)(n)] or [ˌkʷʰw̥ɑpʁ̩ˤːˈʁˤe̞ʃɘ̃(ː)(n)] though the initial vowel is not in an environment where it normally undergoes fronting in the dialect here. As a result there are probably better word pairs to demonstrate this.

Yes, but I couldn't think of any, and the FORCE lexical set is impenetrable to me anyway.

I bet a lot of people, myself included, couldn't separate a list of words into NORTH-words and FORCE-words even if that was the only way of keeping themselves from being dropped into a pit of snakes.

[Lērisama]

I bet a lot of people, myself included, couldn't separate a list of words into NORTH-words and FORCE-words even if that was the only way of keeping themselves from being dropped into a pit of snakes.

My only clue would be the spelling. Those silent ⟨e⟩s, and the ⟨oa⟩s in a few, must be doing something. (Assuming FORCE is the originally long one. It might be NORTH – I can never remember)

[Travis B.]

I bet a lot of people, myself included, couldn't separate a list of words into NORTH-words and FORCE-words even if that was the only way of keeping themselves from being dropped into a pit of snakes.

My only clue would be the spelling. Those silent ⟨e⟩s, and the ⟨oa⟩s in a few, must be doing something. (Assuming FORCE is the originally long one. It might be NORTH – I can never remember)

The problem is telling apart words written with <orC> in them.