Zompist Bboard Again

Kuchigakatai wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:01 pm John Wells's Longman Pronunciation Dictionary presents a three-way distinction between:
- supposed [səˈpʰoʊst] ~ [ˈspoʊst], in the phrase "to be supposed to [do sth]"
- supposed [səˈpʰoʊzd], as the passive participle of "to suppose" (she has supposed that..., the man supposed to have the power)
- supposed [səˈpʰoʊzɪd] or [səˈpʰoʊzd], as an adjective (apparently as in "the supposèd evidence")

What do you guys think?

correct

Does a similar distinction exist between adjectival allegèd [əˈlɛdʒɪd] and participial alleged [əˈlɛdʒd]?

yes

What about adjectival fixèd and participial fixed [fɪkst].

no

It seems very clear to me that it exists between learnèd (~educated) and the participle learned too at least, since the former is often printed with the grave accent.

yes

Agreed on all points.

This is a random question, but who here has a length distinction rather than a voicing distinction in final consonant of loss and laws, moss and maws, floss and flaws, Ms. and Miss, lace and lays, moose and mooes (3rd sg. of moo), and so on when spoken in isolation?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:01 pm This is a random question, but who here has a length distinction rather than a voicing distinction in final consonant of loss and laws, moss and maws, floss and flaws, Ms. and Miss, lace and lays, moose and mooes (3rd sg. of moo), and so on when spoken in isolation?

Do you mean a length difference in the consonant as opposed to the vowel? Is this a question about how one resolves conflicting signals?

I suspect I may now distinguish the vowels of the last pair as well as the others (on top of cueing the phonemic voicing), though I didn't forty odd years ago.

Richard W wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:19 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:01 pm This is a random question, but who here has a length distinction rather than a voicing distinction in final consonant of loss and laws, moss and maws, floss and flaws, Ms. and Miss, lace and lays, moose and mooes (3rd sg. of moo), and so on when spoken in isolation?

Do you mean a length difference in the consonant as opposed to the vowel? Is this a question about how one resolves conflicting signals?

I suspect I may now distinguish the vowels of the last pair as well as the others (on top of cueing the phonemic voicing), though I didn't forty odd years ago.

Yes, I meant consonant length. (E.g. I have heard people who pronounce final /z/ not before a vowel as [s] (or shall I say [z̥]) and final /s/ as [sː] (or shall I say [s]).)

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:01 pm This is a random question, but who here has a length distinction rather than a voicing distinction in final consonant of loss and laws, moss and maws, floss and flaws, Ms. and Miss, lace and lays, moose and mooes (3rd sg. of moo), and so on when spoken in isolation?

I have:

[lɔs] [lo̞ːz]
[mɔs] [mo̞ːz]
[fɫɔs] [fɫo̞ːz]
[mɪs] [mɪs] (I always thought these two were homophones)
[læ͡is] [læ͡iˑz]
[mʉˑs] [mʉːz]

On the other hand, I do seem to have a length distinction in cat [kʰæt͡s] vs cats [kʰætsː]. This is primarily a distinction between an affricate and a stop+fricative sequence, but auditorily the main difference is the lengthened sibilance. I’ve often wondered if anyone else has this same distinction.

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:50 pm On the other hand, I do seem to have a length distinction in cat [kʰæt͡s] vs cats [kʰætsː]. This is primarily a distinction between an affricate and a stop+fricative sequence, but auditorily the main difference is the lengthened sibilance. I’ve often wondered if anyone else has this same distinction.

I know that Polish has a similar distinction between cz [t͡ʂ] and trz [tʂ].

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:09 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:50 pm On the other hand, I do seem to have a length distinction in cat [kʰæt͡s] vs cats [kʰætsː]. This is primarily a distinction between an affricate and a stop+fricative sequence, but auditorily the main difference is the lengthened sibilance. I’ve often wondered if anyone else has this same distinction.

I know that Polish has a similar distinction between cz [t͡ʂ] and trz [tʂ].

Yes, I do know that already; just wondering if anyone else has this same distinction in English.

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:38 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:09 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:50 pm On the other hand, I do seem to have a length distinction in cat [kʰæt͡s] vs cats [kʰætsː]. This is primarily a distinction between an affricate and a stop+fricative sequence, but auditorily the main difference is the lengthened sibilance. I’ve often wondered if anyone else has this same distinction.

I know that Polish has a similar distinction between cz [t͡ʂ] and trz [tʂ].

Yes, I do know that already; just wondering if anyone else has this same distinction in English.

I think that for me when /t/ becomes an affricate (except in the /tj/ and /tr/ clusters, not that I'd regard the second as still having /t/) it remains non-sibilant. But I think I might have something similar when /s/ becomes an affricate after /n/, so that pairs like mince/mints are distinguished by a longer fricative phase in the latter. As usual, I'm not that confident of the self-analysis of this sort of phonetic detail though.

anteallach wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:45 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:38 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:09 pm
I know that Polish has a similar distinction between cz [t͡ʂ] and trz [tʂ].

Yes, I do know that already; just wondering if anyone else has this same distinction in English.

I think that for me when /t/ becomes an affricate (except in the /tj/ and /tr/ clusters, not that I'd regard the second as still having /t/) it remains non-sibilant. But I think I might have something similar when /s/ becomes an affricate after /n/, so that pairs like mince/mints are distinguished by a longer fricative phase in the latter. As usual, I'm not that confident of the self-analysis of this sort of phonetic detail though.

I do make a distinction between mince and mints, but this distinction is that the [n] is preserved in the former and the stop portion is much weaker in it while the latter loses the [n] (preserved as vowel nasalization), is glottalized, and has much stronger stopping.

anteallach wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:45 pm But I think I might have something similar when /s/ becomes an affricate after /n/, so that pairs like mince/mints are distinguished by a longer fricative phase in the latter. As usual, I'm not that confident of the self-analysis of this sort of phonetic detail though.

Hmm, this is an interesting one. From a spectrogram, it appears that for me the difference is one of preglottalisation (something I didn’t even realise I had): mince is [mɪns ~ mɪnt͡s] whereas mints is [mɪnˀt͡s]. Still, the two are similar enough that I have confused them in the past.

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 5:11 pm

anteallach wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:45 pm But I think I might have something similar when /s/ becomes an affricate after /n/, so that pairs like mince/mints are distinguished by a longer fricative phase in the latter. As usual, I'm not that confident of the self-analysis of this sort of phonetic detail though.

Hmm, this is an interesting one. From a spectrogram, it appears that for me the difference is one of preglottalisation (something I didn’t even realise I had): mince is [mɪns ~ mɪnt͡s] whereas mints is [mɪnˀt͡s]. Still, the two are similar enough that I have confused them in the past.

Is preglottalization (or in the case of /t/, frequent outright glottal replacement) of coda fortis stops and affricates universal amongst English varieties or not?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:07 pm Is preglottalization (or in the case of /t/, frequent outright glottal replacement) of coda fortis stops and affricates universal amongst English varieties or not?

It's supposed to be lacking in Australian English, thereby demolishing one alleged piece of evidence that PIE 'voiced stops' were glottalised.

Richard W wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:16 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:07 pm Is preglottalization (or in the case of /t/, frequent outright glottal replacement) of coda fortis stops and affricates universal amongst English varieties or not?

It's supposed to be lacking in Australian English, thereby demolishing one alleged piece of evidence that PIE 'voiced stops' were glottalised.

Hmm, I suppose that’s just more evidence that I don’t actually speak Australian English…

(Also, how’s that relevant to the reconstruction of PIE?)

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:08 pm

Richard W wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:16 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:07 pm Is preglottalization (or in the case of /t/, frequent outright glottal replacement) of coda fortis stops and affricates universal amongst English varieties or not?

It's supposed to be lacking in Australian English, thereby demolishing one alleged piece of evidence that PIE 'voiced stops' were glottalised.

Hmm, I suppose that’s just more evidence that I don’t actually speak Australian English…

(Also, how’s that relevant to the reconstruction of PIE?)

Some glottalicists argue that it's a retention, along with the "vestjysk stød" in Danish.

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 9:22 pmSome glottalicists argue that it's a retention, along with the "vestjysk stød" in Danish.

Australian English isn't, like, the original English, so it's clearly a later invention. Why would a PIE theory be concerned with that?


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 4:46 am Australian English isn't, like, the original English, so it's clearly a later invention. Why would a PIE theory be concerned with that?

It's largely a copy of the English of London, so it's valid evidence for how English was once spoken in London. Also, if you take seriously the maxim that the further flung regions preserve the older forms of a language, then it is the goto place for English pronunciation.

There is evidence from recordings of early settlers and their immediate descendants in New Zealand that pre-glottalisation was not a widespread feature of 19th century English English. (Source: Peter Trudgill, A Window on the Past: ‘Colonial Lag’ and New Zealand Evidence for the Phonology of Nineteenth-Century English, American Speech, 1999; curiously it appears that Trudgill then thought it was more of a British thing than an American one.)

How similar is "vestjysk stød" (as opposed to standard Danish stød, which IIRC is related to the Swedish and Norwegian tones) to the English phenomenon?

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:14 amIt's largely a copy of the English of London, so it's valid evidence for how English was once spoken in London. Also, if you take seriously the maxim that the further flung regions preserve the older forms of a language, then it is the goto place for English pronunciation.

I have doubts. Even if Australian started off as a copy of London English, I thought it was the common understanding all specific Australian features are later innovations. And I don't think anyone takes that maxim seriously nowadays?


JAL