Interesting blog post, but with a silly conclusion. I can't say for sure for German, but for the Dutch (and I think it's about the same as German in this regard), the distinction between [æ] and [ɛ] is nigh impossible to perceive. They're all part of the Dutch phoneme /ɛ/; just like the STRUT vowel sounds to us like the Dutch /ʏ/ phoneme, etc. It has little to do with a wrongly taught pronunciation based on old-fashioned native pronunciation...
I think Jack WIndsor was alluding to that in much of modern-day English English, /æ/ has been lowered to, or close to, [a] from its closer position found in older RP and NAE, and trying to explain why speakers of languages such as German and Dutch have not gone along with this change in their own English pronunciation.
That said, I personally hear everything from a front (not central) [a] to [ɛ] and even the likes of [eə] or even [iə] as /æ/ (but I tell /ɛ/ apart from it in the speech of non-NCVS speakers even though their /ɛ/ overlaps with my /æ/).
jal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:44 pmfor the Dutch (and I think it's about the same as German in this regard), the distinction between [æ] and [ɛ] is nigh impossible to perceive. They're all part of the Dutch phoneme /ɛ/
I think all of this is true for Hindi-speakers and perhaps speakers of various other Indo-Aryan languages, too.
Interesting blog post, but with a silly conclusion. I can't say for sure for German, but for the Dutch (and I think it's about the same as German in this regard), the distinction between [æ] and [ɛ] is nigh impossible to perceive. They're all part of the Dutch phoneme /ɛ/; just like the STRUT vowel sounds to us like the Dutch /ʏ/ phoneme, etc. It has little to do with a wrongly taught pronunciation based on old-fashioned native pronunciation...
I think Jack WIndsor was alluding to that in much of modern-day English English, /æ/ has been lowered to, or close to, [a] from its closer position found in older RP and NAE, and trying to explain why speakers of languages such as German and Dutch have not gone along with this change in their own English pronunciation.
Some have, actually. I don't think it's surprising that there's some inertia, but another point must be that non-native speakers are also exposed to varieties of English which retain [æ] or something even higher (or a diphthong with a non-open front starting point) such as most American English (though the California Vowel Shift says hello).
With Dutch specifically, it may also be relevant that its native short A is (in the standard language anyway) a back vowel.
Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:56 pmI think Jack WIndsor was alluding to that in much of modern-day English English, /æ/ has been lowered to, or close to, [a] from its closer position found in older RP and NAE, and trying to explain why speakers of languages such as German and Dutch have not gone along with this change in their own English pronunciation.
Well, foremost I'd say American English influence. British English, though the standard in teaching, isn't heard as much on television* and in music and cinema* as American English. Furthermore, German /a/ is more like [ɐ], which may feel further removed (or at least more back) from a lowered /æ/ then it is from /ɛ/. As for Dutch, its /a/ is far more open than even lowered /æ/ (and its "short a" /ɑ/ is a low back vowel akin to American LOT).
*Not in Germany, as they're mostly dubbed.
anteallach wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:02 amSome have, actually. I don't think it's surprising that there's some inertia, but another point must be that non-native speakers are also exposed to varieties of English which retain [æ] or something even higher (or a diphthong with a non-open front starting point) such as most American English (though the California Vowel Shift says hello).
With Dutch specifically, it may also be relevant that its native short A is (in the standard language anyway) a back vowel.
I've never heard a Dutch person that has Dutch /a/ for English /æ/, but some may indeed have that, perhaps those exposed to Estuary English.
"Douglas" has /V/, yes, but "Doug" can have either /V/ or /u:/, as can "Dougie". These are occasionally written "Doog" and "Doogie" to indicate this, but not normally.
The /u:/ version can be Scottish, in which case it's probably a retention of the older pronunciation of "Douglas" (the 'Scottish' version can also be heard elsewhere due to Scottish influence, particularly in Northern England). [I know an English /du:g/]. Alternatively, it can be because "Doug" (etc) can also be an abbreviation of "Dougal", which does retain /u:/ even in the long form.
In general, unless you know someone's full name is "Dougal", it's best to assume that "Doug" (or "Dougie") has /V/. However, don't be shocked if you encounter one who has /u:/ instead, particularly if they're Scottish.
Arguably there is a difference between "compare-able" and the well known adjective comparable, but I'd always use the prescribed pronunciation for both senses if I had an audience.
Pabappa wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:10 pm
Arguably there is a difference between "compare-able" and the well known adjective comparable, but I'd always use the prescribed pronunciation for both senses if I had an audience.
Bit more complicated than that. Leaving aside "compare-able", "comparable" has two pronunciations anyway, as part of the usual Latinate stress ambiguity - c.f. controversy. However, in US dialects with the marry-Mary merger, the Latinate pronunciation of "comparable" (with 'marry') merges with "compare-able" (with 'Mary').
Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:45 pm
I have never been able to decide between the two pronunciations of comparable; both /ˈkɒmpərəbəl/ and /kəmˈpɛrəbəl/ seem valid to me.
For me only /ˈkɑmprəbəl/ is correct; /kəmˈpɛrəbəl/ strikes me as a spelling pronunciation or hypercorrection.
But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me?
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?
Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:45 pm
I have never been able to decide between the two pronunciations of comparable; both /ˈkɒmpərəbəl/ and /kəmˈpɛrəbəl/ seem valid to me.
I have /kɒmˈparəbəl/ with a TRAP vowel in the second syllable, but am familiar with /ˈkɒmprəbəl/ as well. I've never noticed it actually being pronounced "compare-able" /kɒmˈpɛːrəbəl/ in BrE.
Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:45 pm
I have never been able to decide between the two pronunciations of comparable; both /ˈkɒmpərəbəl/ and /kəmˈpɛrəbəl/ seem valid to me.
I have /kɒmˈparəbəl/ with a TRAP vowel in the second syllable, but am familiar with /ˈkɒmprəbəl/ as well. I've never noticed it actually being pronounced "compare-able" /kɒmˈpɛːrəbəl/ in BrE.
It isn't usually, but I do hear it where the sense is clearly 'capable of being compared'. Eg:
"Could you compare it with an orange?"
"I couldn't compare it with anything, it's not compare-able!"
anteallach wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:22 pm
I have /kɒmˈparəbəl/ with a TRAP vowel in the second syllable, but am familiar with /ˈkɒmprəbəl/ as well. I've never noticed it actually being pronounced "compare-able" /kɒmˈpɛːrəbəl/ in BrE.
It isn't usually, but I do hear it where the sense is clearly 'capable of being compared'. Eg:
"Could you compare it with an orange?"
"I couldn't compare it with anything, it's not compare-able!"
I think that also applies here. When used with a preposition (e.g. "The body count in Poirot simply is not comparable to the body count in Midsomer Murders.") I would normally use /ˈkɒmp(ə)rəbəl/ but when speaking specifically of the ability to be compared (e.g. "You could try to compare a list to a map but the two really are not comparable.") I might be more inclined to use /kəmˈpɛrəbəl/.
