Zompist Bboard Again

anteallach wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:45 amHow similar is "vestjysk stød" (as opposed to standard Danish stød, which IIRC is related to the Swedish and Norwegian tones) to the English phenomenon?

I recall discussing this with someone and concluding it's got nothing to do with English preglottalisation, and is quite plainly an innovation that long postdates Proto-Germanic. I don't have time to dig this up, though, so take it with a grain or two of salt.

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:13 pm

anteallach wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:45 amHow similar is "vestjysk stød" (as opposed to standard Danish stød, which IIRC is related to the Swedish and Norwegian tones) to the English phenomenon?

I recall discussing this with someone and concluding it's got nothing to do with English preglottalisation, and is quite plainly an innovation that long postdates Proto-Germanic. I don't have time to dig this up, though, so take it with a grain or two of salt.

That's what I would have expected...

jal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 4:46 am

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

If Australian English has preglottalization of coda fortis plosives, that's evidence that this glottalization existed in the common ancestor of Australian, British, and American English. If it doesn't, that's evidence against it, although probably weak evidence since American English diverged earlier.

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:21 pm

jal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 4:46 am

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

If Australian English has preglottalization of coda fortis plosives, that's evidence that this glottalization existed in the common ancestor of Australian, British, and American English. If it doesn't, that's evidence against it, although probably weak evidence since American English diverged earlier.

But the fact that many younger speakers of AusE do have preglottalization of coda fortis plosives indicates that either AusE never lost it completely or that it was introduced at a later date from other English varieties, and if earlier AusE lacked preglottalization does not rule out that it may have lost it relative to past varieties from which it was descended which had it.

Can and can't in isolation, before a plosive, before a semivowel, and before a vowel.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:09 am Can and can't in isolation, before a plosive, before a semivowel, and before a vowel.

[kʰɛn]
[kʰẽə̃nˀt]

[kʰɛn]~[kʰɨn]~[kʰn̩]~[gn̩]
[kʰẽə̃(n)ˀ(t)]

[kʰɛn]~[kʰɨn]~[kʰn̩]~[gn̩]
[kʰẽə̃(n)ˀ] (at least t > ʔ / _#j - I don't have yod coalescence)

[kʰɛ̃{n|ɾ̃}]~etc.
[kʰẽə̃{n(ˀ(t))|ɾ̃}]

Big Sur. I didn't know what it was until I Googled it after Apple named the latest instalment of their MacOS after it.


JAL

Same as "Big Sir", /bɪɡ səɹ/

jal wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 5:13 am Big Sur. I didn't know what it was until I Googled it after Apple named the latest instalment of their MacOS after it.

Now I'm curious how you pronounced it. (I only know one pronunciation and it's the only one that ever occurred to me.)

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:43 amNow I'm curious how you pronounced it. (I only know one pronunciation and it's the only one that ever occurred to me.)

I would've guessed it's homophonous with "sir" (since that's how "sur" is pronounced in words like "surcharge", "surname", "surge" etc.), but on its own it looks so non-English, that I my "foreign non-English language" spelling reading kicked in and I wanted to pronounce it with /u/ or /ʊ/.


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 4:22 pmI would've guessed it's homophonous with "sir" (since that's how "sur" is pronounced in words like "surcharge", "surname", "surge" etc.), but on its own it looks so non-English, that I my "foreign non-English language" spelling reading kicked in and I wanted to pronounce it with /u/ or /ʊ/.

Depending on one's accent, either of those might make it homophonous with "Big Sewer".

manure

(Does yod-dropping apply? Does the stressed syllable have /or/ or /ɝ/?)

/mənˈ(j)uː(ə)ɹ/

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:45 pm manure

(Does yod-dropping apply? Does the stressed syllable have /or/ or /ɝ/?)

/məˈnur/ [mɘ̃ːˈnʉ̯u(ː)ʁʷ]

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:45 pmmanure (Does yod-dropping apply? Does the stressed syllable have /or/ or /ɝ/?)

Are there variaties of English that have /or/ or /ɝ/ instead of /ur/?

Inans, but probably [məˈnjʊə].


JAL

[məˈnjɵː ~ məˈnjoː] (-ʊː ~ -ɔː in more traditional phonemic transcription)

jal wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 5:36 pm

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:45 pmmanure (Does yod-dropping apply? Does the stressed syllable have /or/ or /ɝ/?)

Are there variaties of English that have /or/ or /ɝ/ instead of /ur/?

/ur/ doesn't exist in most of the US.

Definitely /ur/ for me though. /mə'nur/. Pronunciation with /ɝ/ is rare. Nonrhotic form is /uə/ and still found but has been in decline for a long time.

Maine USA

[məˈnjʊə] or [məˈnjɜː] or [məˈnjɜə] for me (Enɡland). There's something funny going on with the free variation here - the frequencies are different to those for monosyllables.

Richard W wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 1:31 am [məˈnjʊə] or [məˈnjɜː] or [məˈnjɜə] for me (Enɡland). There's something funny going on with the free variation here - the frequencies are different to those for monosyllables.

Always the CURE vowel for me I think, so [məˈn̠ʲʊː] with variable hints of rhoticity.