Zompist Bboard Again

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2023 1:23 pm It's not one particular dialect; it's general in Irish English outside of Ulster. (The Wikipedia article even calls it "defining characteristic of Hiberno-English".)

None of these varieties, however, merges /ð/ and /θ/. This distinction is always maintained. Your example should read: "I tink dat dis is very important." Some varieties with th-stopping maintain the distinction between /ð/ and /θ/ and /d/ and /t/ by realising the first pair as dentals and the second as alveolars (a distinction derived from Irish, where the dental series is only truly dental when non-palatalised).

Thank you!

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2023 1:23 pm Some varieties with th-stopping maintain the distinction between /ð/ and /θ/ and /d/ and /t/ by realising the first pair as dentals and the second as alveolars (a distinction derived from Irish, where the dental series is only truly dental when non-palatalised).

I don't think that is specific to Hiberno-English? When I personally stop /ð/ and /θ/ they are commonly (and in the case of /θ/, always) dentoalveolar or dental whereas my /d/ and /t/ are always alveolar or palatalized alveolar (except when elided or assimilated), and I'm quite certain there is no influence of Irish on the English here.

What is the proper form of 'make' with 'thou' in that sentence?

It is thou that made the sun (ie, it is you that made the sun)

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 2:42 am What is the proper form of 'make' with 'thou' in that sentence?

It is thou that made the sun (ie, it is you that made the sun)

thou madest

zompist wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 6:12 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 2:42 am What is the proper form of 'make' with 'thou' in that sentence?

It is thou that made the sun (ie, it is you that made the sun)

thou madest

I’m not sure I agree, since it’s in a relative clause… compare present-tense first person It is I that makes the sun.

zompist wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 6:12 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 2:42 am What is the proper form of 'make' with 'thou' in that sentence?

It is thou that made the sun (ie, it is you that made the sun)

thou madest

Thanks!
I get a bunch of Bible quotes for 'it is Thou that madest me' on Google, so I'm going with that

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 6:17 am I’m not sure I agree, since it’s in a relative clause… compare present-tense first person It is I that makes the sun.

Do you really say "It's I who is talking"?

I think there is some inflection slippage with this construction... to me "it's I that make the sun" is correct, but "...makes the sun" is... wrong but tolerable? Certainly not simply ungrammatical like "I makes the sun."

But in any case I don't think this slippage would be appropriate in a register that uses "thou".

zompist wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 6:32 am I think there is some inflection slippage with this construction... to me "it's I that make the sun" is correct, but "...makes the sun" is... wrong but tolerable? Certainly not simply ungrammatical like "I makes the sun."

Yes, I agree with this. It's I who is talking is entirely tolerable, even if it may not be quite as ‘correct’.

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 7:43 am

zompist wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 6:32 am I think there is some inflection slippage with this construction... to me "it's I that make the sun" is correct, but "...makes the sun" is... wrong but tolerable? Certainly not simply ungrammatical like "I makes the sun."

Yes, I agree with this. It's I who is talking is entirely tolerable, even if it may not be quite as ‘correct’.

It's liable to violent correction. A safer combination is It is me who is talking. Introspection about 50 years ago led me to the colloquial rule that the relative pronoun is first person singular when it's antecedent is 'I' and third person singular when it's antecedent is 'me'.

Does anyone else have this split (ignore the nasalization and length)?:

pom: [pʰã(ː)m]
palm: [pʰɑ̃(ː)m]
pall: [pʰɒ(ː)o̯]
comm: [kʰã(ː)m]
calm: [kʰɑ̃(ː)m]
call: [kʰɒ(ː)o̯]

Note that my father has [pʰã(ː)m] and [kʰã(ː)m] for palm and calm, while my mother has [pʰɑ̃(ː)ɤ̯̃m]~[pʰɒ̃(ː)õ̯m] and [kʰɑ̃(ː)ɤ̯̃m]~[kʰɒ̃(ː)õ̯m] respectively. It is as if at some point was influenced by both pronunciations and split the difference.

(Another note - I checked by looking in a mirror, and my vowel in palm is unrounded while my vowel in pawn is rounded, i.e. [pʰɑ̃(ː)m] versus [pʰɒ̃(ː)n].)

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 2:56 pm Does anyone else have this split (ignore the nasalization and length)?:

pom: [pʰã(ː)m]
palm: [pʰɑ̃(ː)m]
pall: [pʰɒ(ː)o̯]
comm: [kʰã(ː)m]
calm: [kʰɑ̃(ː)m]
call: [kʰɒ(ː)o̯]

I think I maybe pronounce balm with a vowel slightly lower than bomb?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 2:56 pm Does anyone else have this split (ignore the nasalization and length)?:

pom: [pʰã(ː)m]
palm: [pʰɑ̃(ː)m]
pall: [pʰɒ(ː)o̯]
comm: [kʰã(ː)m]
calm: [kʰɑ̃(ː)m]
call: [kʰɒ(ː)o̯]

Yes, I think what you've got there is an /l/. Apparently you fully vocalize it when it's final (I don't), but in any case it colors the vowel (as it does for me).

FWIW this must be an old sound change, not an ongoing one, because it's not hard to get an actual [al], e.g. in doll.

I don't think I have different vowels in palm/pall, but the l is optional in palm and near-syllabic in pall. (That is, it's about the same sound as in pail, but not as long.)

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 2:56 pm Does anyone else have this split (ignore the nasalization and length)?:

I have /l/-vocalisation so I have it too, e.g.:

comm: [kʰɔm]
calm: [kʰɑːm]
call: [kʰoˑw]

(Never said pall out loud, insofar as I can remember, so not sure how to pronounce that set of word.)

zompist wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 4:49 pm FWIW this must be an old sound change, not an ongoing one, because it's not hard to get an actual [al], e.g. in doll.

No, I have [dow] for that one. For me call and doll nearly rhyme, differing only in vowel length.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 4:49 pm FWIW this must be an old sound change, not an ongoing one, because it's not hard to get an actual [al], e.g. in doll.

I have [d̥a(ː)ɤ̯] for doll myself.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 4:11 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 2:56 pm Does anyone else have this split (ignore the nasalization and length)?:

pom: [pʰã(ː)m]
palm: [pʰɑ̃(ː)m]
pall: [pʰɒ(ː)o̯]
comm: [kʰã(ː)m]
calm: [kʰɑ̃(ː)m]
call: [kʰɒ(ː)o̯]

I think I maybe pronounce balm with a vowel slightly lower than bomb?

Bomb, balm, and ball follow the same pattern for me:

bomb: [b̥ã(ː)m]
balm: [b̥ɑ̃(ː)m]
ball: [b̥ɒ(ː)o̯]

The thing about this is that these pronunciations of words like palm, calm, balm, etc. are ostensibly spelling pronunciation, that LOT is supposed to merge with what's called PALM in NAE. Thing is, it is awfully systematic for spelling pronunciation, as if all these words underwent spelling pronunciation in the very same way at the very same time, almost like a sound law (and typically w.r.t. spelling pronunciation more common words resist it more strongly than less common words, but we don't see that here).

FWIW I have:

comm [kʰɔm]
calm [kʰäːm]
call, cool [kʰʊˑu̯(ɫʷ)]
doll [dɔɫʷ ~ dɔu̯(ɫʷ)]

The latter likes to merge with dole [dɔu̯(ɫʷ)], which is the same for basically all /ɔl/ words like poll, atoll, quoll. Although lol is resistant, always [ɫʷɔɫʷ], but even then it's probably slightly higher than the /ɔ/ of lot. AusEng pulls everything into the high back space before coda /l/, resulting in a very similar vowels for pall/pool/pole/poll/pull; likewise Cal/cowl are difficult to distinguish, and for eastern staters Kel too. This paper has a formant chart showing it, although if anything it's more conservative than my idiolect.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 9:53 pm The thing about this is that these pronunciations of words like palm, calm, balm, etc. are ostensibly spelling pronunciation, that LOT is supposed to merge with what's called PALM in NAE. Thing is, it is awfully systematic for spelling pronunciation, as if all these words underwent spelling pronunciation in the very same way at the very same time, almost like a sound law (and typically w.r.t. spelling pronunciation more common words resist it more strongly than less common words, but we don't see that here).

Yes, I probably just have an /l/ here, though I'm not sure what to analyse it as phonetically; I've tended to use historic [ɫ], but I realise I don't actually have tongue contact as with initial /l/, so it might be more vocalised than I was thinking.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 2:56 pm Does anyone else have this split (ignore the nasalization and length)?:

pom: [pʰã(ː)m]
palm: [pʰɑ̃(ː)m]
pall: [pʰɒ(ː)o̯]
comm: [kʰã(ː)m]
calm: [kʰɑ̃(ː)m]
call: [kʰɒ(ː)o̯]

Received Pronunciation has a 3-way vowel split of CVC words here (at least, using Tom as the first member), and it survives in my English, which I think is fairly standard. (I don't have the LOT-CLOTH split.)

Richard W wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 11:17 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 2:56 pm Does anyone else have this split (ignore the nasalization and length)?:

pom: [pʰã(ː)m]
palm: [pʰɑ̃(ː)m]
pall: [pʰɒ(ː)o̯]
comm: [kʰã(ː)m]
calm: [kʰɑ̃(ː)m]
call: [kʰɒ(ː)o̯]

Received Pronunciation has a 3-way vowel split of CVC words here (at least, using Tom as the first member), and it survives in my English, which I think is fairly standard. (I don't have the LOT-CLOTH split.)

That is to be expected, though, since RP isn't father-bother merged, whereas my English, like practically all NAE varieties outside Eastern New England, is father-bother merged, so there is not supposed to be any distinction between pom/palm, comm/calm, bomb/balm, etc. The standard answer to this is "spelling pronunciation", but it just doesn't feel like spelling pronunciation to me, it's just too systematic and regular. My thought is what if there were English varieties outside Standard English in which the /l/ in these -<alm> words survived, which then spread in more recent times aided by the influence of orthography rather than as spelling pronunciation alone.

Darren wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 10:00 pm AusEng pulls everything into the high back space before coda /l/, resulting in a very similar vowels for pall/pool/pole/poll/pull; likewise Cal/cowl are difficult to distinguish, and for eastern staters Kel too. This paper has a formant chart showing it, although if anything it's more conservative than my idiolect.

Exactly the same for me — in fact more so, since I have consistent /l/-vocalisation in the coda. The formant chart in that paper understates the situation dramatically. In my case it’s more like:

call [kʰoːw]
cool [kʰʊːw ~ kʰuːw]
coal, Cole [kʰow]
Cal [kʰæw]
cowl [kʰæ͡ʉ̞(w)]
cow [kʰæ͡ʉ̞]
Kel [kʰe̞͡ʉ̞(w)]
pool [pʰʊːw ~ pʰuːw]
pole, poll [pʰow]
pull [pʰʊw ~ pʰuw]

So before /l/ I have at least two vowel pairs distinguished only by length, very close to each other, as well as a bunch of other near-mergers, all very close to each other too.