Zompist Bboard Again

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 9:46 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 9:37 pm When people speak of "diphthongization of high long vowels" I always had thought of them as [ɪj] and [ʊw], i.e. only lightly diphthongized. (I only diphthongize mine when I have /uː/ after a coronal/palatal and before a dorsal, as [yu].)

There's register-related alternation; careful [ɪi̯ ʊʉ̯] ranging to casual [əi̯ əy̯]. In unstressed syllables (happY) you might find [ɪi̯] or perhaps even [i], but always [əj] before a vowel ([ˌhæpʰəjɜzˈɫʷæɻɪi̯]). "to" and "gonna" both end in [ɜ] in normal unstressed position, but [əw] (or ?[əɻʷ]) before a vowel; likewise "the" is [ðɜ], [ðəj] (but never *[ðɜɻʷ]).

FOOT [ʊ] vs. NORTH/THOUGHT/FORCE/CURE [ʊː]

vlad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:19 am You really have [ʊː] for NORTH/THOUGHT/FORCE? For me, full [fʊl] and fool [fʊːl] are a minimal pair for vowel length, in contrast to fall [foːl]. Do you merge fool and fall? (Though now that I think of it, some people have the LOT vowel in fall, so maybe that's how they're distinguished.)

Darren wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 2:50 pm Yes, "fool" and "fall" are merged as [fʊːɫʷ]. Likewise "doll" and "dole" are both [dɔu̯ɫʷ].

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 3:58 pm Does anyone else have a contrast between what can be best described as /ar/ and /ɑr/ from historical /ɔːlr/ and /ɒr/ respectively in their dialects? In conservative pronunciation my dialect /ɔːlr/ is [ɒo̯ʁˤ], and in less conservative but still conservative-ish pronunciation such as my own for this it is [ɒʁˤ]. However, many people here have [aʁˤ] which contrasts with [ɑʁˤ] from /ɒr/ (e.g. all right [aːˈʁˤə̆ĕ̯ʔ(t)] and already [aːˈʁˤɜːɾi(ː)]~[aːˈʁˤɜːːj] versus tomorrow [tʰə̃ːˈmɑːʁo̞(ː)(w)]~[ɾə̃ːˈmɑːʁˤo̞(ː)(w)] and sorrow [ˈsɑːʁˤo̞(ː)(w)]), even though people sometimes shift /ɔːlr/ in the opposite direction to [ɔʁˤ].

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 4:57 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 3:58 pm Does anyone else have a contrast between what can be best described as /ar/ and /ɑr/ from historical /ɔːlr/ and /ɒr/ respectively in their dialects? In conservative pronunciation my dialect /ɔːlr/ is [ɒo̯ʁˤ], and in less conservative but still conservative-ish pronunciation such as my own for this it is [ɒʁˤ]. However, many people here have [aʁˤ] which contrasts with [ɑʁˤ] from /ɒr/ (e.g. all right [aːˈʁˤə̆ĕ̯ʔ(t)] and already [aːˈʁˤɜːɾi(ː)]~[aːˈʁˤɜːːj] versus tomorrow [tʰə̃ːˈmɑːʁo̞(ː)(w)]~[ɾə̃ːˈmɑːʁˤo̞(ː)(w)] and sorrow [ˈsɑːʁˤo̞(ː)(w)]), even though people sometimes shift /ɔːlr/ in the opposite direction to [ɔʁˤ].

If I'm following, you're saying that the already/tomorrow contrast becomes one of backing alone in Milwaukee, while the standard involves rounding, and backing in the opposite direction— /ɔl/ vs. /a/.

FWIW I have /ɔ/ vs. /a/.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 3:58 pm Does anyone else have a contrast between what can be best described as /ar/ and /ɑr/ from historical /ɔːlr/ and /ɒr/ respectively in their dialects? In conservative pronunciation my dialect /ɔːlr/ is [ɒo̯ʁˤ], and in less conservative but still conservative-ish pronunciation such as my own for this it is [ɒʁˤ]. However, many people here have [aʁˤ] which contrasts with [ɑʁˤ] from /ɒr/ (e.g. all right [aːˈʁˤə̆ĕ̯ʔ(t)] and already [aːˈʁˤɜːɾi(ː)]~[aːˈʁˤɜːːj] versus tomorrow [tʰə̃ːˈmɑːʁo̞(ː)(w)]~[ɾə̃ːˈmɑːʁˤo̞(ː)(w)] and sorrow [ˈsɑːʁˤo̞(ː)(w)]), even though people sometimes shift /ɔːlr/ in the opposite direction to [ɔʁˤ].

It’s likely most sling bullets were always stone, but it is really hard to tell a stone sling bullet from, you know, a smooth rock. Because it’s a smooth rock.

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 11:50 am A footnote in Bret Devereaux's latest blog post ( https://acoup.blog/2024/11/22/fireside- ... nventions/ ) says the following:

It’s likely most sling bullets were always stone, but it is really hard to tell a stone sling bullet from, you know, a smooth rock. Because it’s a smooth rock.

Which makes me wonder: what exactly is the difference between a rock and a stone?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 12:08 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 11:50 am A footnote in Bret Devereaux's latest blog post ( https://acoup.blog/2024/11/22/fireside- ... nventions/ ) says the following:

It’s likely most sling bullets were always stone, but it is really hard to tell a stone sling bullet from, you know, a smooth rock. Because it’s a smooth rock.

Which makes me wonder: what exactly is the difference between a rock and a stone?

Stones tend to be smallish and are often somewhat rounded. Rocks are a more general category. All stones are rocks but not vice versa. As mass nouns, though, both refer to materials and are roughly synonymous.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 12:20 pm Not actually related to the question, but I'd like to say that looks like a lovely blog, thanks for pointing it out to me.

willm wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 12:12 pm I don't think there is a difference in denotation between "rock" and "stone". "Rock" is maybe slightly lower in register than "stone"; in the quote from Bret Devereaux "rock" sounds kind of dismissive in a way "stone" wouldn't. I would guess that "rock" is somewhat more common, at least in speech. "Stone" is usual for the adjectival meaning "made of rock/stone" (which is how Devereaux is using it in both occurrences).

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 4:36 pm When you say something is made out of "stone", you imply that it is cut, and something like a "stone" countertop is normally polished. When you say that something is made out of "rock" you strongly imply that it is raw material from the earth.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 4:36 pm "Rock" implies raw material that is unpolished, unworn, uncut. Individual stones are worn down, typically by water, whereas a "rock" does imply a rough piece of material. When you say something is made out of "stone", you imply that it is cut, and something like a "stone" countertop is normally polished. When you say that something is made out of "rock" you strongly imply that it is raw material from the earth.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:13 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 4:36 pm "Rock" implies raw material that is unpolished, unworn, uncut. Individual stones are worn down, typically by water, whereas a "rock" does imply a rough piece of material. When you say something is made out of "stone", you imply that it is cut, and something like a "stone" countertop is normally polished. When you say that something is made out of "rock" you strongly imply that it is raw material from the earth.

I agree that rocks go with rough, natural, and big. But stones can be natural (uncut)-- e.g. stones worn smooth by water.