Zompist Bboard Again

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 6:19 am On a completely different tack: is Rousseauian the only English word containing four different vowel letters next to each other?

onomatapoeia
sequoia
Iroquoian

If we try hard enough, we can turn sequoia into a verb and past tense it to get "sequoiaed" with all five in a row. In fact, google produces a result for that:

"We’ve got, here, big-shouldered Chicago and wide-chested Texas. Bayoued Louisiana and sequoiaed California."

Just found another one:

"If you’re not sequoiaed out by this point, the creatively-named Big Trees Trail makes for a great addition to your day."

Darren wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 6:39 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 6:19 am On a completely different tack: is Rousseauian the only English word containing four different vowel letters next to each other?

onomatapoeia
sequoia
Iroquoian

If we try hard enough, we can turn sequoia into a verb and past tense it to get "sequoiaed" with all five in a row. In fact, google produces a result for that:

"We’ve got, here, big-shouldered Chicago and wide-chested Texas. Bayoued Louisiana and sequoiaed California."

Just found another one:

"If you’re not sequoiaed out by this point, the creatively-named Big Trees Trail makes for a great addition to your day."

Ooh, great find! Just what I was hoping for.

Does the phrase "to know how to do something" imply that you can actually do it, or could it also mean theoretical knowledge? In other words, would the statement "I know how to do a Fosbury flop, but I can't actually do it" make sense?

I think so, although when spoken I would expect "how" to be stressed to convey that meaning. If not stressed, then I would be inclined to interpret it as a statement of ability.

alynnidalar is correct, but I’d be inclined to prefer an impersonal construction here: either I know how a Fosbury Flop is done, or I know how one does a Fosbury Flop.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 9:23 am In other words, would the statement "I know how to do a Fosbury flop, but I can't actually do it" make sense?

I think that'd be a little infelicitous, but I think it depends on the exact claim and the context. One area where proven competence is not expected is a claim about the future: "I know how to get the cops off our trail", "I know how we win this election."

If you're about to deny actually being able to do it, it's sound better to say something like "I know how you're supposed to do X, but..." or "I know how X works, but..."

I also agree with alynnidalar that stressing "how" emphasizes that one's knowledge may be purely theoretical.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 9:23 am Does the phrase "to know how to do something" imply that you can actually do it, or could it also mean theoretical knowledge? In other words, would the statement "I know how to do a Fosbury flop, but I can't actually do it" make sense?

It's an edge case, but I wouldn't find it inaccurate to say "I know how to do a Fosbury flop, but I can't actually do it" in a situation where the speaker has done it in the past, but is currently unable to because of a change in circumstances (e.g. being in a different physical condition or getting out of practice). Also, I guess maybe if someone had practiced in a driving simulator to an extent that it prepared them to actually drive, they could truthfully say "I know how to drive" even before actually taking the wheel in real life?

It's weirder to use "I know how to X" in a context where the person has no kind of relevant practical experience at all (real or simulated). I wouldn't say knowing about how something is done constitutes knowing how to do it. E.g. if someone has a detailed knowledge of the physiology of whistling, but isn't able to do it and hasn't ever been able to do it in the past, I would push back against saying that they "know how to whistle".

Then again, some things might be so simple to carry out once you are familiar with the concept that practical experience wouldn't really be necessary. E.g. for some kinds of simple recipes, I feel like "I know how to make X" might not necessarily imply practical experience with that particular recipe, so long as there isn't any question about being familiar with all of the necessary substeps. Other types of knowledge like this might be how to synthesize certain chemicals, how to make certain devices, etc. But I'm not sure when "I can't actually do it" would make sense in that kind of context.

The English word "sop" comes, according to a linguistic consensus, from a PG word for soup, and then an OE word for bread with a liquid like soup soaked into it. The word has numerous individual usages, all having to do with absorption. A hunk of bread in a bowl of soup is sometimes called a sop. You sop things up with a sponge.

But then there's "sopping wet." This describes something so saturated that liquid is eminating from it, the opposite of absorption. Presumably the logic here is that the object has absorbed some liquid in the past and is now oversaturated. But in that case, why is the term not "sopped wet?" I can find no other case of the term sop being used to describe the movement of liquid out of something. Did people switch from "sopped wet" to "sopping wet" because it has a better cadence (much the same way Americans switched to saying "I could care less" to eliminate unstressed syllables)? Or did they always say "sopping wet" and just reversed the meaning for one specific term?

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:52 pm The English word "sop" comes, according to a linguistic consensus, from a PG word for soup, and then an OE word for bread with a liquid like soup soaked into it. The word has numerous individual usages, all having to do with absorption. A hunk of bread in a bowl of soup is sometimes called a sop. You sop things up with a sponge.

But then there's "sopping wet." This describes something so saturated that liquid is eminating from it, the opposite of absorption. Presumably the logic here is that the object has absorbed some liquid in the past and is now oversaturated. But in that case, why is the term not "sopped wet?" I can find no other case of the term sop being used to describe the movement of liquid out of something. Did people switch from "sopped wet" to "sopping wet" because it has a better cadence (much the same way Americans switched to saying "I could care less" to eliminate unstressed syllables)? Or did they always say "sopping wet" and just reversed the meaning for one specific term?

Maybe it just turned ambitransitive, like "break":

Etymonline wrote:Intransitive sense of "be drenched, be soaked" is from 1755.

Or maybe interference from "dripping"?

I want to ask the other Australians on the board about their TRAP/BAD/LAD allophones, to see if they match mine. It was difficult to figure out at first since these are the kind of allophones speakers aren't consciously aware of.

For me, short /æ/ is [a] in most contexts, but is [æ] before /ŋ/ (hang [hæŋ]) and before /l/ at the end of a word (pal [pʰæl̪ˤ]) or before a consonant (Albert [æl̪ˤbət͡ʔ]), but not /l/ before a vowel (pallet [pʰal̪ˠət͡ʔ]). (The allophone of /l/ is also different.)

Long /æː/ is [aː] before /d/ (bad [baːd]), and [æː] before /ɡ/ (bag [bæːɡ]), /n/ (man [mæːn]), and /m/ (damn [dæːm]). There's one word with [æː] before /d͡ʒ/, magic [mæːd͡ʒɪk]. I don't ever have /æː/ before /b/.

So the contrast is one of pure length only before /d/ (had [had] vs. sad [saːd]); elsewhere it's a combination of length and quality (can (v.) [kʰan] vs. can (n.) [kʰæːn]). And in contexts where /æ/ is [æ], /æː/ does not occur.

vlad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 7:16 pm I want to ask the other Australians on the board about their TRAP/BAD/LAD allophones, to see if they match mine. It was difficult to figure out at first since these are the kind of allophones speakers aren't consciously aware of.

I’m reasonably sure my short and long vowel qualities are the same — i.e. it’s a pure length contrast between [æ] and [æː]. Then again, my split is weird compared to other Aussies, probably because I don’t actually speak Australian English. (Both my parents are South African, I was born in Canada, and I only moved here when I was 4. Most of the people we know here are other Jewish South Africans.)

Fraid mine are just [æ æː] everywhere too.

Something that has bothered me for a while is that there are two pronunciations of the word "experiment," one for real life and one for the internet.
ex-PEAR-iment - universal in real life, never spoken on the internet
ex-PEER-iment - universal on the internet, never spoken in real life
Seriously, I have never heard anyone actually say exPEERiment to me, but I can't find a single youtuber who says exPEARiment. Is there some sort of unique internet dialect that's forming or something? Are we going to end up with a online/irl diglossa situation?

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2023 7:44 pm Something that has bothered me for a while is that there are two pronunciations of the word "experiment," one for real life and one for the internet.
ex-PEAR-iment - universal in real life, never spoken on the internet
ex-PEER-iment - universal on the internet, never spoken in real life
Seriously, I have never heard anyone actually say exPEERiment to me, but I can't find a single youtuber who says exPEARiment. Is there some sort of unique internet dialect that's forming or something? Are we going to end up with a online/irl diglossa situation?

Both of these seem equally odd to me. I just have ex-PER-iment, with a short vowel.

To me experiment is always /əkˈspɛrəmənt/ [ɘʔkˈspɛːʁˤɘ̃ːmɘ̃ʔ]~[ɘʔkˈspɛːʁˤɘ̃ːmɘ̃nt]. Mind you, I am marry-merry-Mary-merged, and I do not preserve historical English vowel length.

There is a town near here named Mukwonago whose name is normally pronounced [məˈɡʷwɑ̃ːɾ̃ɘːˌɡo̞(:)(w)]~[məˈɡʷwɑ̃ːɘ̯̃ˌɡo̞(:)(w)], and this makes no sense phonemically, because if it had /g/ it should be *[məːˈɡwɑ̃ːɾ̃ɘːˌɡo̞]~[məːˈɡwɑ̃ːɘ̯̃ˌɡo̞] and if it had /k/ it should be *[məˈkʷʰwɑ̃ːɾ̃ɘːˌɡo̞(:)(w)]~[məˈkʷʰwɑ̃ːɘ̯̃ˌɡo̞(:)(w)]. Even if you interpreted the syllabification differently there would be issues, because then you'd get *[məʔkˈwɑ̃ːɾ̃ɘːˌɡo̞]~[məʔkˈwɑ̃ːɘ̯̃ˌɡo̞], but there is no glottal stop here. From listening to others here and even people on the radio, they all seem to have a short first syllable vowel and either [gʷw] or occasionally an unaspirated [kʷw] without glottalization. If anything it seems to be an case of the phonemic system of the dialect here starting to be reanalyzed, because it implies an underlying form of /məˈɡwaːnəːɡo(ː)/ with phonemic vowel length. Any thoughts?

Sporadic voicing after reduced vowels seems to be a thing. I grew up hearing "spinage" as a common pronunciation of spinach.

Alternatively, it could be that it's always had /g/ and {k} in English due to poor transcription from Algonquian, a specter that looms over many place names in the Midwest.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 7:10 pm Sporadic voicing after reduced vowels seems to be a thing. I grew up hearing "spinage" as a common pronunciation of spinach.

I also have this pronunciation, oddly enough.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 7:11 pm

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 7:10 pm Sporadic voicing after reduced vowels seems to be a thing. I grew up hearing "spinage" as a common pronunciation of spinach.

I also have this pronunciation, oddly enough.

For me both spinach and sandwich have this pronunciation, with [ɘːtʃ] reflecting underlying /ədʒ/. Pronouncing them with [ɘʔtʃ] reflecting underlying /ətʃ/ feels like spelling pronunciation to me.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 7:26 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 7:11 pm

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 7:10 pm Sporadic voicing after reduced vowels seems to be a thing. I grew up hearing "spinage" as a common pronunciation of spinach.

I also have this pronunciation, oddly enough.

For me both spinach and sandwich have this pronunciation, with [ɘːtʃ] reflecting underlying /ədʒ/. Pronouncing them with [ɘʔtʃ] reflecting underlying /ətʃ/ feels like spelling pronunciation to me.

Yes, I have it for sandwich too.