The "How Do You Pronounce X" Thread

[Darren]

peel [ˈpʰɪə̯ɫʷ]
pill [ˈpʰiɫʷ]
pull [ˈpʰʊɫʷ]
pool [ˈpʰʊu̯ɫʷ]
Paul [ˈpʰʊu̯ɫʷ]

[bradrn]

peel [ˈpʰɪə̯ɫʷ]
pill [ˈpʰiɫʷ]
pull [ˈpʰʊɫʷ]
pool [ˈpʰʊu̯ɫʷ]
Paul [ˈpʰʊu̯ɫʷ]

This surprises me a bit. I was under the impression that /l/-vocalisation was near-universal in AuE.

[Darren]

peel [ˈpʰɪə̯ɫʷ]
pill [ˈpʰiɫʷ]
pull [ˈpʰʊɫʷ]
pool [ˈpʰʊu̯ɫʷ]
Paul [ˈpʰʊu̯ɫʷ]

This surprises me a bit. I was under the impression that /l/-vocalisation was near-universal in AuE.

Hmm... I'm from SA which is apparently a less strong accent than the other states. And I probably vary between [ɫʷ ~ ʟʷ ~ w] in reality.

[Travis B.]

peel: [pʰi(ː)ɯ̯]
pill: [pʰɘ(ː)ɯ̯]
pull: [pʰʊ(ː)ɯ̯]
pool: [pʰu(ː)ɯ̯]
Paul: [pʰɒ(ː)ɤ̯]

Note that after rounded vowels /l/ is partially rounded, but not as fully rounded as the vowels are.

[anteallach]

I personally often lax the /iː/ in really to [ɪ], but it still does not merge with my /ɪ/ because that is centralized to [ɘ].

For me really doesn't have an /iː/: it has an /ɪə/ (often realised as a monophthong [ɪː]), c.f. the same vowel appearing in idea or theatre.

I'm slightly less confident that real also has /ɪə/: I think it does, and saying a phrase like real feel to myself makes me think the two words don't rhyme, but the diphthongisation of /iː/ before word-final /l/ means the distinction is less clear.

[Estav]

peel /pil/ [ˈpʰiə̯ɫ], also real [ˈɹiə̯ɫ], ideal (feels mostly like one syllable, but closer to being "sesquisyllabic" than pill is)
- contrasts, but not very distinctly, with /i.ə/ in peritoneal [ˌpeə̯ɹɘtʰɘˈniː.ɫ̩]
pill /pɪl/ [ˈpʰɪˑɫ] or [ˈpʰɪə̯ɫ] (also really /rɪli/ [ɹɪˑɫi])
pull /pʊl/ [ˈpʰɫ̩ː]? (compare fur [ˈfɹ̩ː], or ˈ[fɚː], likewise pure [pʰjɹ̩ː])
pool /pul/ [ˈpʰuːɫ], also cruel [ˈkʰɹuːɫ], fuel [fjuːɫ], duel/dual [duːɫ]
-contrasts with /u.ə/ accrual [əˈkʰɹʉu̯.ɫ̩]
Paul /pɑl/ [ˈpʰɑːɫ]
dull /dʌl/ [ˈdʌˑɫ]
pail /pel/ [ˈpʰeə̯ɫ]
-contrasts with [e.ə] betrayal [bɘˈtʃɹeɪ̯.ɫ̩]
bell /bɛl/ [bɛ̠ˑɫ] (or [bɜˑɫ]) (different allophone from bed [bɛˑd])

[Travis B.]

Words like peel, feel, and real all feel like monosyllables to me when spoken quickly, but when I speak them slowly and carefully I may pronounce them as what feel like disyllables, i.e. ending in -[iːɯ(ː)].

[Travis B.]

All this reminds me of how I have a marginal minimal pair between pier [pʰɪ(ː)ʁˤ] and Peter [ˈpʰiʁ̩ˤ(ː)]. Of course the conventional analysis of these words is as /pɪər/ versus /ˈpiːtər/; the short stressed vowel in my Peter can be explained by the cheshirization of the missing /t/. Also, -/ɪər/ here alternates between -[ɪ(ː)ʁˤ] and -[iːʁ̩ˤ(ː)] depending on stress and the individual; I personally tend to primarily have the former but many often have the latter, which allows for a contrast between pier [ˈpʰiːʁ̩ˤ(ː)] and Peter [ˈpʰiʁ̩ˤ(ː)].

Speaking of cheshirization, at what level of complexity of cheshirization and allophony do you guys think that it makes sense to still analyze things in conventional terms? It seems that especially within NAE we spend a lot of effort in trying to make our analyses phonemically fit conventional GA phonology, as if all NAE varieties are mildly accented variations upon GA, such that we can pretty much transcribe them all with the same phonemes, modulo a few mergers like the cot-caught merger and the pin-pen merger, aside from some East Coast and old Southern varieties which we have dismissed as moribund. If we take someone whose linguistic view of NAE is not GA-centric, say, some linguistics researcher from New Guinea, and have them come to America to study the Anglic varieties spoken there, especially if they do not have a preconceived notion of what NAE "should" be (let's say they have no prior exposure to NAE, their prior exposure to English being solely to AusE, NZE, and EngE), what would they find?

[Raholeun]

What about the vowels in "fool", "pool" and "poop"?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

What about the vowels in "fool", "pool" and "poop"?

[fuʊ.wəɫ~fuəɫ]
[pʰuʊ.wəɫ~pʰuəɫ]
[pʰuʊp̚]

[Travis B.]

What about the vowels in "fool", "pool" and "poop"?

fool: [fu(ː)ɯ̯]*
pool: [pʰu(ː)ɯ̯]*
poop: [pʰuʔp]

* Note that the offglide is less rounded than the nucleus, but it is still partially rounded, moreso than plain [ɯ].

[anteallach]

All this reminds me of how I have a marginal minimal pair between pier [pʰɪ(ː)ʁˤ] and Peter [ˈpʰiʁ̩ˤ(ː)]. Of course the conventional analysis of these words is as /pɪər/ versus /ˈpiːtər/; the short stressed vowel in my Peter can be explained by the cheshirization of the missing /t/. Also, -/ɪər/ here alternates between -[ɪ(ː)ʁˤ] and -[iːʁ̩ˤ(ː)] depending on stress and the individual; I personally tend to primarily have the former but many often have the latter, which allows for a contrast between pier [ˈpʰiːʁ̩ˤ(ː)] and Peter [ˈpʰiʁ̩ˤ(ː)].

Speaking of cheshirization, at what level of complexity of cheshirization and allophony do you guys think that it makes sense to still analyze things in conventional terms? It seems that especially within NAE we spend a lot of effort in trying to make our analyses phonemically fit conventional GA phonology, as if all NAE varieties are mildly accented variations upon GA, such that we can pretty much transcribe them all with the same phonemes, modulo a few mergers like the cot-caught merger and the pin-pen merger, aside from some East Coast and old Southern varieties which we have dismissed as moribund. If we take someone whose linguistic view of NAE is not GA-centric, say, some linguistics researcher from New Guinea, and have them come to America to study the Anglic varieties spoken there, especially if they do not have a preconceived notion of what NAE "should" be (let's say they have no prior exposure to NAE, their prior exposure to English being solely to AusE, NZE, and EngE), what would they find?

Do you really never realise the /t/ in Peter as a flap or tap, even in reasonably careful speech? And is there something special about that word: what about intervocalic /t/ and /d/ in general? (I presume vowels are longer before a historic /d/, even if that’s also completely elided.)

[Travis B.]

Do you really never realise the /t/ in Peter as a flap or tap, even in reasonably careful speech? And is there something special about that word: what about intervocalic /t/ and /d/ in general? (I presume vowels are longer before a historic /d/, even if that’s also completely elided.)

When speaking carefully I do un-elide intervocalic /t d n nt nd/, and may even realize Peter hypercorrectly as [ˈpʰiʔt̚t(ʰ)ʁ̩ˤ(ː)], but the key thing for me is that it feels to me like adding a consonant isn't normally there in careful speech rather than that I delete a consonant that is normally there in every speech. I have had a good few times where I'm speaking with someone and they don't know what I just said, so I repeat what I said (louder and slower of course), and they still do not understand me, so I then remember to add elided consonants (and realize my /l/s as lateral), and only then do they understand me.

I should note that flap elision (for /t d n nt nd/) and other similar elisions (for /b v ð/) they are partially lexicalized, as in some positions in some words it is more likely than others, even after one takes into account that it normally occurs between the first and second syllables of a trochee (e.g. I normally do not have it in tomato, whereas I practically always have it for the /t/ in Saturday and the /nt/ in twenty).

[Nortaneous]

peel: /pijəl/ [pçij.l̩ˤ]
pill: /pil/ [pʰɪlˤ]
pull: /pul/ [pʰʊˤlˤ]
pool: /puwl/ [pʰuˤlˤ]
Paul: /pol/ [pʰɔˤlˤ]

fool: /fuwl/ [fuˤlˤ]
poopː /puwp/ [pʰʉwˀp]
accrual: /əkruwəl/ [əkʰɹuˤ(wˤ).l̩ˤ]
pailː /pejəl/ [peəˤlˤ] (not sure if this contrasts with 'betrayal' - would be a difference of vowel height if anything)

Peter: /pijDər/ [pçijɾə˞ ]
Saturday: /sæ(Də)rdɨj/ [sæɾə˞ ɽɨj]~[sæɹɽi]
twenty: /twenDɨj/ [twɛ̃ɾ̃ɨj]~[twɛ̃ːi]
tomato: /təmejDəw/ [tʰ(ə̥)mejɾəw]

[Moose-tache]

Does anyone think that velar plosives in English are undergoing a kind of lenition in similar environments to coronal ones? Sometimes I hear words like "bigger" or "significant," and it sounds like the velar plosive has been softened to ɰ, or at least voiced where it would otherwise be voiceless. Has anyone else noticed this?

[Sol717]

Does anyone think that velar plosives in English are undergoing a kind of lenition in similar environments to coronal ones? Sometimes I hear words like "bigger" or "significant," and it sounds like the velar plosive has been softened to ɰ, or at least voiced where it would otherwise be voiceless. Has anyone else noticed this?

This is something I've certainly noticed in my own speech; the archetypical example would be acknowledge /ɘɡˈnɔlɘd͡ʒ/, as it has affected the underlying form of that word for me (in very rapid speech, it may even be something like [əˈnoɰət͡ʃ]). It is far from unthinkable that some future English varieties of English will end up undergoing developments parallel to the Western Romance languages or Middle Indo-Aryan (like bicker /pəɣə/, bigger /pəː/), though one could also imagine a Southern Italo-Romance-like development where e.g. (bicker /bəkə/ is pronounced [pəɣə]). The analogy is somewhat spoiled by the lack of labial lenition, but after all, /p b/ can often be more resilient to lenition than their coronal and velar congeners in both Romance and NIA.

[Travis B.]

In certain words I have [g] for /k/ (e.g. in acknowledge, Mukwonago) or [ɣ] for /g/ (e.g. sporadically in you guys), but /k/ and /g/ never merge in postvocalic/intervocalic environments as preceding allophonic vowel length is preserved.

[anteallach]

Does anyone think that velar plosives in English are undergoing a kind of lenition in similar environments to coronal ones? Sometimes I hear words like "bigger" or "significant," and it sounds like the velar plosive has been softened to ɰ, or at least voiced where it would otherwise be voiceless. Has anyone else noticed this?

This is something I've certainly noticed in my own speech; the archetypical example would be acknowledge /ɘɡˈnɔlɘd͡ʒ/, as it has affected the underlying form of that word for me (in very rapid speech, it may even be something like [əˈnoɰət͡ʃ]). It is far from unthinkable that some future English varieties of English will end up undergoing developments parallel to the Western Romance languages or Middle Indo-Aryan (like bicker /pəɣə/, bigger /pəː/), though one could also imagine a Southern Italo-Romance-like development where e.g. (bicker /bəkə/ is pronounced [pəɣə]). The analogy is somewhat spoiled by the lack of labial lenition, but after all, /p b/ can often be more resilient to lenition than their coronal and velar congeners in both Romance and NIA.

I brought up acknowledge a couple of years ago: see here. For me it seems to be an anomaly: I can't think of any other words with a historic /k/ which has become /g/ like that.

I tend to associate lenition of plosives with Scouse, but (except in the northern English "t to r" words) it doesn't voice historically voiceless stops, and /b/ and /g/ are the most resistant of the English plosives to Scouse lenition.

[Travis B.]

On that note, does anyone else here have congra/dʒ/ulate? (This one is notable to me as vowel length is not preserved; rather, the preceding vowel is long rather than short.)

[Rounin Ryuuji]

On that note, does anyone else here have congra/dʒ/ulate? (This one is notable to me as vowel length is not preserved; rather, the preceding vowel is long rather than short.)

I do, and it's a kind-of unusual case, it seems — nature (and other words in -ture, all of which could be given a reading pronunciation -cher/chir/chur and spatula have unvoiced yod-coalesced t.