Zompist Bboard Again

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 9:15 pm Do you perceive the vowels in Sirius (and in serious, for those who merge the two) and in tour to be lax or tense? I ask because supposedly in GA the vowels in both of these are supposed to be lax, but I personally perceive the vowels in both of these as tense.

Vowels before /r/ are tense except in NURSE. It's complicated because monophthongal tense vowels don't appear elsewhere.

In ddy Ryfaisd & Niwli Yndorst Speling ffyr ddy Ssylestijyl Prosperiti Ery aif çywsyn ty ryit ddem with ddy cêryctyrs <a ê ô î û> wiç, widd ddij ixepsçyn yf <ô>, dywnt ypîr enihwêr elss in Ymericyn Inglisç; ddêr ar nyw gud opsçyns byt cympaetibiliti widd nonrywtic fyrajytijs ssijms lijst baed.

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 2:15 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 9:15 pm Do you perceive the vowels in Sirius (and in serious, for those who merge the two) and in tour to be lax or tense? I ask because supposedly in GA the vowels in both of these are supposed to be lax, but I personally perceive the vowels in both of these as tense.

Vowels before /r/ are tense except in NURSE.

Agreed ─ all the classic NAE 'rhotic vowels' except for NURSE and lettER are 'tense' to me (even if they could be considered otherwise purely phonetically). However, I have subjectively 'lax' vowels before /r/ due to elisions (e.g. in every when realized as [ˈɜːʁˤi(ː)]).

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 2:15 pm It's complicated because monophthongal tense vowels don't appear elsewhere.

In the dialect here the only true diphthongal phonemes are what I would synchronically consider /ae̯ əe̯ ɑɔ̯ ɔɪ̯/. While /e/ has a word-final diphthongal allophone for some speakers and an overt [w] consonant is inserted after /o/ before another vowel and oftentimes word-finally, I would not consider /e/ and /o/ to be primary diphthongs because they are not diphthongs before another consonant in the dialect here. (The dialect here has a wide array of what I consider to be 'secondary diphthongs' due to intervocalic elisions followed by vowel sequence coalescence, but I would not analyze these as distinct diphthong phonemes but rather as phoneme pairs.)

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 2:15 pm In ddy Ryfaisd & Niwli Yndorst Speling ffyr ddy Ssylestijyl Prosperiti Ery aif çywsyn ty ryit ddem with ddy cêryctyrs <a ê ô î û> wiç, widd ddij ixepsçyn yf <ô>, dywnt ypîr enihwêr elss in Ymericyn Inglisç; ddêr ar nyw gud opsçyns byt cympaetibiliti widd nonrywtic fyrajytijs ssijms lijst baed.

The Welsh are asking for their orthography back, BTW.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 2:29 pm In the dialect here the only true diphthongal phonemes are what I would synchronically consider /ae̯ əe̯ ɑɔ̯ ɔɪ̯/. While /e/ has a word-final diphthongal allophone for some speakers and an overt [w] consonant is inserted after /o/ before another vowel and oftentimes word-finally, I would not consider /e/ and /o/ to be primary diphthongs because they are not diphthongs before another consonant in the dialect here. (The dialect here has a wide array of what I consider to be 'secondary diphthongs' due to intervocalic elisions followed by vowel sequence coalescence, but I would not analyze these as distinct diphthong phonemes but rather as phoneme pairs.)

This is a dialectal difference.

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 2:15 pm In ddy Ryfaisd & Niwli Yndorst Speling ffyr ddy Ssylestijyl Prosperiti Ery aif çywsyn ty ryit ddem with ddy cêryctyrs <a ê ô î û> wiç, widd ddij ixepsçyn yf <ô>, dywnt ypîr enihwêr elss in Ymericyn Inglisç; ddêr ar nyw gud opsçyns byt cympaetibiliti widd nonrywtic fyrajytijs ssijms lijst baed.

The Welsh are asking for their orthography back, BTW.

Ddy laengwidçis yf ddy Britisç Ajyls sçêr y nymbyr yf ffonolodçicyl treits wiç dywnt lend ddymsselfs ty streitffôrwyrd reprisenteisçyn in ddy Laetin aelffybet, byt wiç haef ôlredi bin ydrest in ssyç laengwidçis aes Cornisç aend Welsç. Hwai rijinfent ddy hwijl? Aet eni reit its not aidenticyl ty Welsç, hwiç dysynt ziws ddy letyrs <ç z j x q>; ddij ywnli propyrtijs teicyn dyrectli ffrym Welsç ar <dd> insted yf <dh> aend <ff f> ffôr /f v/, hwiç is riquajyrd tuw yfoid ddy plyryl marcyr bijing ddy ssili-luking <-z>. <y> is ziwsd ffyr sçwa in Cornisç aend Maenx (not ty mensçyn ddy laengwidçis yf Ijstyrn Zyryp); <k> is yssensçyli ynziwsd in ddy Rywmaenss laengwidçis, aend ziwnifyrssyl ziws yf <k> ffôr /k/ wud bij inyprywprijyt in y laengwidç with ssyw meni lywns ffrym Ffrensç.

(<ç z> ar, yf côrs, propyrli thôt yf in ddiss context aes ferijynts yf <g>; haefing thrij ferijynts yf <g> gyws baec ty Ôrm.)

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 3:06 pm Ddy laengwidçis yf ddy Britisç Ajyls sçêr y nymbyr yf ffonolodçicyl treits wiç dywnt lend ddymsselfs ty streitffôrwyrd reprisenteisçyn in ddy Laetin aelffybet, byt wiç haef ôlredi bin ydrest in ssyç laengwidçis aes Cornisç aend Welsç. Hwai rijinfent ddy hwijl? Aet eni reit its not aidenticyl ty Welsç, hwiç dysynt ziws ddy letyrs <ç z j x q>; ddij ywnli propyrtijs teicyn dyrectli ffrym Welsç ar <dd> insted yf <dh> aend <ff f> ffôr /f v/, hwiç is riquajyrd tuw yfoid ddy plyryl marcyr bijing ddy ssili-luking <-z>. <y> is ziwsd ffyr sçwa in Cornisç aend Maenx (not ty mensçyn ddy laengwidçis yf Ijstyrn Zyryp); <k> is yssensçyli ynziwsd in ddy Rywmaenss laengwidçis, aend ziwnifyrssyl ziws yf <k> ffôr /k/ wud bij inyprywprijyt in y laengwidç with ssyw meni lywns ffrym Ffrensç.

(<ç z> ar, yf côrs, propyrli thôt yf in ddiss context aes ferijynts yf <g>; haefing thrij ferijynts yf <g> gyws baec ty Ôrm.)

Thett's probbebley the naicest-lucquyng Ynnglyssg spillyng refum Ae'v ivver ciyn. Ytt iyven ciyms te queiter te maust meicger daejeliccts. Ovv cus mae aun cysstem ys fa mu efyssgent, uthau ytt's deonful yss ynn woquyng aunley fu Estreilejen Ynnglyssg ennd ydd probbebley biy jeushlesh fu Emirrequen Ynnglyssg.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 6:47 pmBy 'northern Standard Dutch' I meant Standard Netherlands Dutch. So the system in Standard Dutch is that there are practically two genders, the de-words and the het-words, except that people are normally referred to by natural gender (hence hij versus zij except for certain words such as meisje which receive het; in this regard it isn't much different from colloquial German) whereas objects are referred to by hij versus het except in a limited set of fossilized cases which receive zij (regardless of their original gender). Am I right here?

Basically. "except for certain words such as meisje which receive het" - many people will use the natural gender here though.


JAL

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 3:06 pm <k> is yssensçyli ynziwsd in ddy Rywmaenss laengwidçis, aend ziwnifyrssyl ziws yf <k> ffôr /k/ wud bij inyprywprijyt in y laengwidç with ssyw meni lywns ffrym Ffrensç.

(Emffaesis majn)
Sçud ddy ⟨with⟩ bij ⟨widd⟩?

If wii aar getting intuu oalternet ingglisj oarthografiiz, hiir iz mai kandidet, hwitj ai think iz mutj mour riidebel dhan dhi ebuv. Ov kours, main izzent stoulin from welsj and dhen laitli moddifaid sou dhe welsj hav e haarder taim kompleining ebaut dhe theft ov dheir langgwidjiz oarthografi. Dhis wun siimz mour eproupriiet foar e djermannik langgwidj enniweiz. Hauevver ai duu wunder hweddher ai sjuod juuz <s> and <z> oar <ss> and <s> autsaid sillebel onsets biikuz fainel <z> luoks ugli.

Dis is getting ä bit änneuing.

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 9:53 am Dis is getting ä bit änneuing.

Seconded. Spelling reforms, schmelling reforms. There simply is no way of spelling English phonetically without spelling the same sounds differently or different sounds the same according to some speakers. The consonants are not much of a problem, but the vowel systems vary a lot.

Maybe split the last few posts into a second Play around with English orthography thread? It's more having fun than English Questions, I think.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 9:57 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 9:53 am Dis is getting ä bit änneuing.

Seconded. Spelling reforms, schmelling reforms. There simply is no way of spelling English phonetically without spelling the same sounds differently or different sounds the same according to some speakers. The consonants are not much of a problem, but the vowel systems vary a lot.

To me a good English spelling reform should be able to handle most words in both RP and GA simultaneously -- with the exception of words that are impossible to reconcile such as standard lieutenant or tomato, where probably the best approach would be to allow multiple spellings.

For you, do words like BORN, TORN rhyme with CORN, HORN, and MOURNE or with FOREIGN and POURIN' (common pronunciation of POURING)? For me, the first (and third) set is two syllables, but the second set is one syllable, because the former are words that are past participles, the ending of which I interpret as being /n=/ instead of just /n/. Note the syllabicity. This also applies to all past participles formed with N, not just those that have R, such as BLOWN, DRAWN, and FLOWN.

How common is this?

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 1:48 am For you, do words like BORN, TORN rhyme with CORN, HORN, and MOURNE or with FOREIGN and POURIN' (common pronunciation of POURING)? For me, the first (and third) set is two syllables, but the second set is one syllable, because the former are words that are past participles, the ending of which I interpret as being /n=/ instead of just /n/. Note the syllabicity. This also applies to all past participles formed with N, not just those that have R, such as BLOWN, DRAWN, and FLOWN.

How common is this?

I have no idea how common it is, but I have ⟨born⟩, ⟨torn⟩, ⟨corn⟩, ⟨horn⟩, ⟨mourne⟩ and also ⟨drawn⟩ rhyme as one syllable words ending in [oːn]¹. ⟨blown⟩ & ⟨flown⟩ also have one syllable and rhyme, ending in [əwn]². ⟨foreign⟩ and ⟨pouring⟩ don't rhyme and have two syllables being [ˈfɔ.ɹ̠n̠̥] and [ˈpoː.ɹɪŋ]/[ˈpoː.ɹɪn] respectively³

¹ My merged CAUGHT/NORTH/FORCE. Phonemically /ɔɹn/ or /ɔːn/ depending on how you like to analyse vowel length.
² My GOAT
³ ⟨Foreign⟩ having LOT/CLOTH and a syllablic consonant, ⟨pouring⟩ having CAUGHT/NORTH/FORCE again and an unstressed [ɪ]³. How to phonemicise these is non-obvious; try any of /ˈfɔɹən/ vs. /ˈpɔɹɹɪŋ/ or /ˈpɔɹ.ɪŋ/ or /ˈfɔən/ vs. /ˈpɔɹɪŋ/ or /ˈfɔ(ɹ)ən/ vs. /ˈpɔː(ɹ)ɪŋ/
⁴ I don't have the unstressed vowel merger

To me the past participle endings in -Vn and -Vrn do not have an extra syllabicity to the /n/ or an inserted schwa phoneme. For instance I have born /bɔrn/, torn /tɔrn/, slown /sloʊn/, etc. Compare with corn /kɔrn/ and horn /hɔrn/ and contrast with foreign /ˈfɔrən/ and pourin'* /ˈpɔrən/.

* I don't like the apostrophe notation typically used for this, since this is a present participle ending dating back all the way to Old English -ende and not an alteration of -ing.

Some Australians and New Zealanders (but not me) pronounce "known" as two syllables. I don't know if this applies to other past participles.

vlad wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 10:15 pmSome Australians and New Zealanders (but not me) pronounce "known" as two syllables. I don't know if this applies to other past participles.

Isn't that just a falling diphthong ending in a schwa that preceeds the "n"?


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 3:07 am

vlad wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 10:15 pmSome Australians and New Zealanders (but not me) pronounce "known" as two syllables. I don't know if this applies to other past participles.

Isn't that just a falling diphthong ending in a schwa that preceeds the "n"?


JAL

No.

jal wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 3:07 am

vlad wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 10:15 pmSome Australians and New Zealanders (but not me) pronounce "known" as two syllables. I don't know if this applies to other past participles.

Isn't that just a falling diphthong ending in a schwa that preceeds the "n"?


JAL

/oə̯/ is very much non-Australian. More a midlands sort of diphthong.

Australian has two alternants for "known"; /ˈnɐy̯n/ (with GOAT) and /ˈnɐu̯ən/ (bisyllabic, with GOAL and syllabic /n/). The same goes for all participles in -own. I hear both forms quite frequently. It doesn't occur with any other vowels; definitely not with "born" etc.

vlad wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 10:15 pm Some Australians and New Zealanders (but not me) pronounce "known" as two syllables. I don't know if this applies to other past participles.

If I heard the known pronounced with two syllables in isolation I'd think you were saying the present participle instead.