Zompist Bboard Again

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:28 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:00 pm And that's just /ˈlɛʒər/. In my case I have the more typical (at least phonemically) /ˈliʒər/ [ˈʟ̞iːʑʁ̩ˤ(ː)]~[ˈɰiːʑʁ̩ˤ(ː)].

Just for shits and giggles could you transcribe how you say "rural"?

[ˈʁˤʷʁ̩ˤːʁˤɯ(ː)] (seriously, and even for me it's a mouthful)

Note though that the [ʁ̩ˤː] is more open than the [ʁˤʷ] or the [ʁˤ].

I should note, though, that my /r/ has an entirely different allophone after coronals, where then it is a coarticulated postalveolar-uvular [ɻʁ] minus any pharyngealization.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 9:03 pm [ˈʁˤʷʁ̩ˤːʁˤɯ(ː)]

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 10:34 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 9:03 pm [ˈʁˤʷʁ̩ˤːʁˤɯ(ː)]

In all actuality, much of the time it turns into [ʁˤʷʁ̩ˤːɰ] because [ˈʁˤʷʁ̩ˤːʁˤɯ(ː)] is just too much.

travis i triple dog dare you to post clear audio recordings of you speaking complete sentences in your natural voice to prove that any of your ridiculous look-at-me transcriptions of how you supposedly pronounce things are anything close to accurate. [ʁˤʷʁ̩ˤːɰ ɰiːʑʁ̩ˤ(ː)] my ass

It has been established that Travis cannot produce natural utterances in a casual register when being consciously recorded. I watched some of the video of him talking in a higher register of the same dialect and although the audio wasn't great there were clear cases of velar [ʟ], although since I can't even be sure what my own /r/ is I won't make any judgement thereon.

The obvious solution to this problem is for Travis to post his home address publicly so that one of us can break into his house and place various hidden microphones around the place to capture him in casual conversation.

Just a moment ago I was in the bathroom doing my morning mouthwash routine, when all of the sudden I felt the spirit of Travis coming through me, like all mediumistic and shit, and I spontaneously started gurgling!

[ʁˤʷʁ̩ˤːɰ] isn’t actually that difficult for me to pronounce, although it does make me sound a bit like a frog.

Emily wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 2:30 am travis i triple dog dare you to post clear audio recordings of you speaking complete sentences in your natural voice to prove that any of your ridiculous look-at-me transcriptions of how you supposedly pronounce things are anything close to accurate. [ʁˤʷʁ̩ˤːɰ ɰiːʑʁ̩ˤ(ː)] my ass

He did. His realization of /l/ is very different from mine, his /t/ is sometimes affricated, and to my ear he barely pronounces preconsonantal /n/. Aside from the question of how to transcribe the rhotic, his transcriptions seem basically accurate.

Aight, I'll bite. What's the point of transcribing a vowel as [ʁ̩ˤ] instead of [ɜ]? You might as well transcribe [a i u] as [ʕ̩ j̩ w̩] or sth else to that effect.

And while we're at it, what's the exact supposed subtle difference between [p t k] and [b̥ d̥ g̥]?

Zju wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 6:10 am Aight, I'll bite. What's the point of transcribing a vowel as [ʁ̩ˤ] instead of [ɜ]?

Because [ɜ] and [ʁ̩ˤ] are not the same thing. The former is a vowel between [ɐ] and [ə], while the latter is a pharyngealised uvular fricative (or more likely an approximant). Consulting data from Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996), it appears that the latter sound is actually closer in articulation to [ɯ], though I suspect it’s quite different both acoustically and articulatorily.

And while we're at it, what's the exact supposed subtle difference between [p t k] and [b̥ d̥ g̥]?

I believe some sources use the latter notation to show slack voice. In my opinion it’s a confusing convention.

Zju wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 6:10 am Aight, I'll bite. What's the point of transcribing a vowel as [ʁ̩ˤ] instead of [ɜ]?

It's not [ɜ]. [ɜ] is conventional for the NURSE vowel in nonrhotic varieties. [ɝ] has convention to recommend it, but elides that, outside maybe the Inland North, American English /r/ is not retroflex. (Compare it to the realization of Indian English /r/ - it's very different.)

And while we're at it, what's the exact supposed subtle difference between [p t k] and [b̥ d̥ g̥]?

[p t k] are fortis and [b̥ d̥ g̥] are unvoiced lenis. This is common in broad transcription of the Germanic varieties in which the distinction between the T and D series is phonetically complicated, like Zurich German and most varieties of English.

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 6:27 am

Zju wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 6:10 amAnd while we're at it, what's the exact supposed subtle difference between [p t k] and [b̥ d̥ g̥]?

[p t k] are fortis and [b̥ d̥ g̥] are unvoiced lenis. This is common in broad transcription of the Germanic varieties in which the distinction between the T and D series is phonetically complicated, like Zurich German and most varieties of English.

Regarding [d̥], one of my professors would use this in narrowly transcribing, say, width (that specific example from my Introduction to Phonetics class in…2010, 2011?).

Consulting data from Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996), it appears that the latter sound is actually closer in articulation to [ɯ], though I suspect it’s quite different both acoustically and articulatorily.

So why not transcribe it using [ɯ] with some diacritics? Are non lateral approximants serving as nuclei all that different from vowels as to call for their specficic IPA letters?

[p t k] are fortis and [b̥ d̥ g̥] are unvoiced lenis.

So what is exactly lenis in phonetic terms?

Zju wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 6:59 am

Consulting data from Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996), it appears that the latter sound is actually closer in articulation to [ɯ], though I suspect it’s quite different both acoustically and articulatorily.

So why not transcribe it using [ɯ] with some diacritics?

Because [ʁ̩ˤ] is much easier to understand. I’m not sure how close it really is to [ɯ] — that was just my best guess as to the nearest common vowel symbol.

(The problem, as I see it, is that the IPA vowels are defined by their acoustics, whereas IPA consonants are defined by their articulation. If you only know the articulation of a sound, it’s therefore easier to represent it with the consonantal symbols.)

[p t k] are fortis and [b̥ d̥ g̥] are unvoiced lenis.

So what is exactly lenis in phonetic terms?

From what I understand, it depends on the situation (which is why I generally steer clear of such terms).

IPA vowels are defined by the position of the tongue - mid-close, high front, low back, etc etc.

Because [ʁ̩ˤ] is much easier to understand.

To me [ʁ̩ˤ] is just confusing

Zju wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 6:59 am

[p t k] are fortis and [b̥ d̥ g̥] are unvoiced lenis.

So what is exactly lenis in phonetic terms?

It depends! In general, fortis [p t k] are aspirated in most onset positions and preglottalized in some coda positions for most speakers (for others they're released as aspirates), and [b̥ d̥ g̥] are something else that isn't that - in American English, depending on the variety and the context, they can be voiced [b d ɡ], tenuis [p t k], implosive [ɓ ɗ ɠ], lenited [β ɾ ɣ], and I swear I've heard ejective realizations once or twice, and sometimes the lenes can also become aspirates. So in contexts where the precise realizations of the plosives don't matter, it's common to use broad transcriptions that gloss over the details.

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 8:02 am

Zju wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 6:59 am

[p t k] are fortis and [b̥ d̥ g̥] are unvoiced lenis.

So what is exactly lenis in phonetic terms?

It depends! In general, fortis [p t k] are aspirated in most onset positions and preglottalized in some coda positions for most speakers (for others they're released as aspirates), and [b̥ d̥ g̥] are something else that isn't that - in American English, depending on the variety and the context, they can be voiced [b d ɡ], tenuis [p t k], implosive [ɓ ɗ ɠ], lenited [β ɾ ɣ], and I swear I've heard ejective realizations once or twice, and sometimes the lenes can also become aspirates.

Did you not just describe /p t k/ and /b d g/?

"aspirated [p t k]" is just [pʰ tʰ kʰ], etc.

So in contexts where the precise realizations of the plosives don't matter, it's common to use broad transcriptions that gloss over the details.

right, it's confusing that IPA doesn't have different bracket notations for different phonetic transcriptions. And I gather that using [b̥ d̥ g̥] implies something about the phonology of the language rather than the realisations themselves

Zju wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 7:51 am IPA vowels are defined by the position of the tongue - mid-close, high front, low back, etc etc.

This is the claim, yes. But in practice it’s false, and it’s been known to be false for ~40 years. You can consult Ladefoged and Maddieson’s Sounds of the World’s Languages for the details — there is no metric of tongue position which matches up well to the IPA vowel chart, whereas a plot of F1 vs F2 reproduces it almost perfectly.

(Or, if you don’t feel like digging up that book, read Geoff Lindsey’s article on the same topic.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 8:57 am

Zju wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 7:51 am IPA vowels are defined by the position of the tongue - mid-close, high front, low back, etc etc.

This is the claim, yes. But in practice it’s false, and it’s been known to be false for ~40 years. You can consult Ladefoged and Maddieson’s Sounds of the World’s Languages for the details — there is no metric of tongue position which matches up well to the IPA vowel chart, whereas a plot of F1 vs F2 reproduces it almost perfectly.

(Or, if you don’t feel like digging up that book, read Geoff Lindsey’s article on the same topic.)

Change in frequencies is due to change in vocal tract shape, no? Our tongues don't "draw out" perfect triangles or trapezoids when filling up the vowel space, but still lowering the tongue increases F1, and fronting it increases F2.
That source as well states that IPA vowel chart is based on tongue positions, even though they don't form a perfect geometric shape.