Zompist Bboard Again

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 1:26 pm The dialect here has what would superficially seem to be non-yod-dropping combined with yod-coalescence if it weren't for that it occurs where yods were never present in the first place. Specifically, there is general palatalization of alveolar and postalveolar consonants before /u/, and /t/ in this environment has a tendency to be (generally lightly, but I've heard extreme examples at times) affricated as a result. For instance, I have [ˈtsʲʰy(ː)] for two with light but non-zero affrication and I have heard people who have [ˈtɕʰy(ː)].

Note that this also affects /ʊ w ɜr/; I still remember a local lawyer commercial from about 17 or so years back where the person in the commercial kept on repeating [ˈtɕʰwʌ̃ɾ̃i(ː)] with really conspicuous affrication over and over.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 1:56 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 1:26 pm The dialect here has what would superficially seem to be non-yod-dropping combined with yod-coalescence if it weren't for that it occurs where yods were never present in the first place. Specifically, there is general palatalization of alveolar and postalveolar consonants before /u/, and /t/ in this environment has a tendency to be (generally lightly, but I've heard extreme examples at times) affricated as a result. For instance, I have [ˈtsʲʰy(ː)] for two with light but non-zero affrication and I have heard people who have [ˈtɕʰy(ː)].

Note that this also affects /ʊ w ɜr/; I still remember a local lawyer commercial from about 17 or so years back where the person in the commercial kept on repeating [ˈtɕʰwʌ̃ɾ̃i(ː)] with really conspicuous affrication over and over.

Does the presence of a high front vowel also shift [tʃʰ] > [tɕʰ]? Before /eɪ ɪ iː/ is where I most expect palatalisation, though I suppose Japanese does have /t d/ > [ts z] before /u/, so /u/-palatalisation isn't exactly unheard-of.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 11:10 am

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 11:05 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:51 am You don't have yod-dropping after coronals in stressed syllables?

At some point or other, I acquired the habit of inserting (or reinserting) it after /t j n/, but not /s z/, such that "tuna" (the fish) is [tʰjuʊ.nə~tʃʰuʊ.nə], "dew" is [djuʊ~dʒuʊ] (often without yod-coalescence, also true of duel, probably as an attempt at not merging them with Jew, jewel), and "new" is [njuʊ] (all not regionally normative). I don't think I always had this yod in most of these places. While I don't remember being corrected about it, I think I simply at some point started thinking it was "correct" (probably from hearing it in older speakers, or in some broadcast speech or somesuch), and having the idea that I was supposed to speak "correctly", began inserting it (probably also influenced by the retention of the yod after /k g/ in words with written long u, eu, ew, making it likely partially a reading pronunciation).

It is interesting that non-yod-dropping survived where you are in e.g. the speech of older people; here yod-dropping after coronals in stressed syllables is complete, with no memory of not having it in the first place.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 8:58 pmThis one might be an actual archaism rather than just sounding like one.

Space60 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 4:11 pm Is yod- coalescence in words like "tuba", "tube", and "due" the most common pronunciation in Britain these days? Cambridge online dictionary lists this for their British pronunciations of these words.

Space60 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 4:11 pm Is yod- coalescence in words like "tuba", "tube", and "due" the most common pronunciation in Britain these days? Cambridge online dictionary lists this for their British pronunciations of these words.

anteallach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:29 am

Space60 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 4:11 pm Is yod- coalescence in words like "tuba", "tube", and "due" the most common pronunciation in Britain these days? Cambridge online dictionary lists this for their British pronunciations of these words.

In England, a clear [tj] or [dj] usually sounds old fashioned to me. There does, though, seem to be an intermediate stage, which is what I have, with a tendency to use apical postalveolar affricates in the words with original /tj/ amd /dj/ and laminal ones in the words with original affricates, so e.g. due and Jew have not quite merged for me. I suspect this is just, as I say, an intermediate stage in the merger rather than a way the distinction is going to be maintained long term.

Some people, e.g. my mother, will usually produce affricates but will sometimes produce [tj] and [dj] in careful speech.

If you want a variety which avoids as much yod coalescence and yod dropping as possible, then try Welsh English.

Space60 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 7:31 amWell, yes. Welsh English lacks yod-dropping even in words like "rude", "flute", "Jew", and "chew".

Kuchigakatai wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 9:57 am Picture, capture.

[kʃ pʃ] or [ktʃ ptʃ]?

Kuchigakatai wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 9:57 am Picture, capture.

[kʃ pʃ] or [ktʃ ptʃ]?

Kuchigakatai wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 9:57 am Picture, capture.

[kʃ pʃ] or [ktʃ ptʃ]?

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 11:20 am

Kuchigakatai wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 9:57 am Picture, capture.

[kʃ pʃ] or [ktʃ ptʃ]?

Both, in somewhat free variation. The former can show up in rapid speech, though the latter would be more usual of a careful pronunciation.

Kuchigakatai wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 9:57 am Picture, capture.

[kʃ pʃ] or [ktʃ ptʃ]?

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 8:54 am

Space60 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 7:31 amWell, yes. Welsh English lacks yod-dropping even in words like "rude", "flute", "Jew", and "chew".

Doesn't it also have a feature by which /ju/ becomes a falling diphthong equivalent to Welsh iw?

anteallach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:12 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 8:54 am

Space60 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 7:31 amWell, yes. Welsh English lacks yod-dropping even in words like "rude", "flute", "Jew", and "chew".

Doesn't it also have a feature by which /ju/ becomes a falling diphthong equivalent to Welsh iw?

Isn't that actually conservative, in that it was a falling diphthong (or rather two distinct falling diphthongs which later merged) in Middle English?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:19 pm Yes, that is a conservative feature. Apparently this feature ended up in some NAE varieties as well, even though I don't know how many people have it anymore here.

Kuchigakatai wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 9:57 am Picture, capture.

[kʃ pʃ] or [ktʃ ptʃ]?