Zompist Bboard Again

ratammer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 1:59 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 10:15 am Are you not horse-hoarse merged?

Horse and hoarse are homophones for me.

jal wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 8:04 am So what's the difference in vowel then between the pairs?

I'm not good at IPA so here's a clip: "fort" then "fault". Bear in mind this is me intentionally trying to emulate casual speech - if I was enunciating, "thought" would have a th sound and would definitely rhyme with "fought" (which would still be identical to "fort"), and "fault" would have a distinct L sound. I can't explain the difference, I just know what sounds right to me.

I can't listen to that clip right now (my work blocks that domain) but just what kind of English do you speak?

I'm from East London.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 2:22 pm I just realized that I don't have raising of /æ/ to /eɪ/ before /ŋ/ in Vancouver, as I pronounce it with [ɛ̃] rather than the expected [ẽ̞].

Perhaps relevantly, I don't have /ŋ/ at all there, but /n/.

anteallach wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 3:23 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 2:22 pm I just realized that I don't have raising of /æ/ to /eɪ/ before /ŋ/ in Vancouver, as I pronounce it with [ɛ̃] rather than the expected [ẽ̞].

Perhaps relevantly, I don't have /ŋ/ at all there, but /n/.

I have [n] before velar consonants in very few words e.g. nightingale (IMD historical /n/ assimilates aggressively w.r.t. POA to following consonants, e.g. there is a bridge in Milwaukee named the Hoan Bridge but I had always thought of it as the Home Bridge as a kid because I did not realize it was supposed to have an /n/ in it), but I do have weirdness where /ŋ/ in some words behaves phonologically like /n/ in places where other dialects have /n/ before velar consonants.

ratammer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 1:59 pm

jal wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 8:04 am So what's the difference in vowel then between the pairs?

I'm not good at IPA so here's a clip: "fort" then "fault". Bear in mind this is me intentionally trying to emulate casual speech - if I was enunciating, "thought" would have a th sound and would definitely rhyme with "fought" (which would still be identical to "fort"), and "fault" would have a distinct L sound. I can't explain the difference, I just know what sounds right to me.

Sounds like you have /l/-vocalisation (like me) — I’d transcribe this as [fo̞ːʔ] vs [foʊ̆ʔ], I think. But then I have no idea why thought should be homophonous with fault: there’s no /l/ in /θoːt/!

ratammer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 1:59 pm I'm not good at IPA so here's a clip: "fort" then "fault". Bear in mind this is me intentionally trying to emulate casual speech - if I was enunciating, "thought" would have a th sound and would definitely rhyme with "fought" (which would still be identical to "fort"), and "fault" would have a distinct L sound. I can't explain the difference, I just know what sounds right to me.

For you, do -aught and -ought generally represent the same sound? It's conceivable that they've preserved (or innovated!) a vocalised consonant sound for the -ugh-, which has then merged with vocalised l as in fault. I'd hazard that the past form fought should be compared to lit from light.

This is all very curious to me, because I have no idea how this outcome could come to be, much the less in an East London variety (Estuary!) rather than some obscure dialect in some corner of the UK. The idea that the -ought in thought would not be identical to the -ought in fought is really interesting to me.

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 8:49 pm

ratammer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 1:59 pm

jal wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 8:04 am So what's the difference in vowel then between the pairs?

I'm not good at IPA so here's a clip: "fort" then "fault". Bear in mind this is me intentionally trying to emulate casual speech - if I was enunciating, "thought" would have a th sound and would definitely rhyme with "fought" (which would still be identical to "fort"), and "fault" would have a distinct L sound. I can't explain the difference, I just know what sounds right to me.

Sounds like you have /l/-vocalisation (like me) — I’d transcribe this as [fo̞ːʔ] vs [foʊ̆ʔ], I think. But then I have no idea why thought should be homophonous with fault: there’s no /l/ in /θoːt/!

Same thing here. I also have /l/-vocalization, and fought for me is [fɒʔ(t)] while fault is [fɒo̯ʔ(t)] and thought is [θɒʔ(t)]~[t̪ɒʔ(t)].

Maybe this is something akin to bolth /boʊlθ/ in some NAE dialects...

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 10:34 pm Maybe this is something akin to bolth /boʊlθ/ in some NAE dialects...

I think that's the most likely explanation.

I've heard "bolth" in the UK too, and I thought I was hearing a real [l], though it's possible my brain inserted one because of a back allophone of the GOAT vowel. I've not heard of "thoughlt" before, but especially with a bit of dialect mixing it wouldn't be that surprising.

Richard W wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 9:06 pm For you, do -aught and -ought generally represent the same sound?

Yes. I would say "taught" and "fought" always rhyme.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 10:20 pm The idea that the -ought in thought would not be identical to the -ought in fought is really interesting to me.

Well like I said, those vowels are identical when enunciating. The only conceivable explanation I can think of is that my brain still wants "thought" and "fought" to sound distinct even when the th and f sounds merge, so it shifts the vowel somehow.

ratammer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 4:50 am

Richard W wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 9:06 pm For you, do -aught and -ought generally represent the same sound?

Yes. I would say "taught" and "fought" always rhyme.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 10:20 pm The idea that the -ought in thought would not be identical to the -ought in fought is really interesting to me.

Well like I said, those vowels are identical when enunciating. The only conceivable explanation I can think of is that my brain still wants "thought" and "fought" to sound distinct even when the th and f sounds merge, so it shifts the vowel somehow.

So is it thought and not fought that's anomalous? I suppose the spelling could might be an old precedent. I don't think Old English preterite leolc of lācan 'to frolic' is at all relevant.

anteallach wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:46 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 10:34 pm Maybe this is something akin to bolth /boʊlθ/ in some NAE dialects...

I think that's the most likely explanation.

I've heard "bolth" in the UK too, and I thought I was hearing a real [l], though it's possible my brain inserted one because of a back allophone of the GOAT vowel. I've not heard of "thoughlt" before, but especially with a bit of dialect mixing it wouldn't be that surprising.

To me GOAT and GOAL are distinct because the former is a monophthong except word-finally or prevocalically, where then an overt [w] may be inserted afterwards (but the vowel is centralized after alveolar, postalveolar, and palatal consonants), whereas GOAL always has a full back vowel and is a diphthong; e.g. boat [b̥o̞ʔ(t)] versus bolt [b̥o̞ʊ̯ʔ(t)], toe [tʰɵ̞(ː)(w)] versus toll [tʰo̞(ː)ʊ̯]. This has the consequence that if I tried to pronounce /boʊlθ/ what would come out of my mouth would likely sound like /boʊθ/ to people with diphthongal GOAT, and conversely /boʊθ/ with diphthongal GOAT might sound like /boʊlθ/ to my ears.

Do you syllabify any word that begins with inV- or unV- and has transparent etymology as V.nV-?

Zju wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 4:27 pm Do you syllabify any word that begins with inV- or unV- and has transparent etymology as V.nV-?

Yes - i.nac.ti.vi.ty, whereas I tend to say in.ac.tive.

Richard W wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 5:56 pm

Zju wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 4:27 pm Do you syllabify any word that begins with inV- or unV- and has transparent etymology as V.nV-?

Yes - i.nac.ti.vi.ty, whereas I tend to say in.ac.tive.

Is it even possible to tell the difference between /ɪn.æk/ and /ɪ.næk/?

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 8:51 pm

Richard W wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 5:56 pm

Zju wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 4:27 pm Do you syllabify any word that begins with inV- or unV- and has transparent etymology as V.nV-?

Yes - i.nac.ti.vi.ty, whereas I tend to say in.ac.tive.

Is it even possible to tell the difference between /ɪn.æk/ and /ɪ.næk/?

As an utterer, yes. Perhaps it is a spelling pronunciation, but for me enactive can definitely have (and for me probably usually has) "/ɪ.næk/". The prominent difference is the length of [n]. In both cases it's shorter than in penknife. We are at the tricky level of the audibility of phonmorpheme boundaries.

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 8:51 pm Is it even possible to tell the difference between /ɪn.æk/ and /ɪ.næk/?

Of some relevance is the fact that in English monosyllables, initial nasals are shorter than final nasals. A speech splicing experiment, published at least 45 years ago, reported that if final nasals were replaced by initial nasals, English listeners perceived a plosive. I think that one of the examples was that if the final nasal of mum was replaced by the initial nasal, English listeners perceived mump. I can't remember the details of accent.

Contrariwise, in Thai diphthongs sensu latissimo, the length of the final nasal will affect the perception of the length of the previous vowel - diphthongs are short-long or long-short combinations.

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 8:51 pm

Richard W wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 5:56 pm

Zju wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 4:27 pm Do you syllabify any word that begins with inV- or unV- and has transparent etymology as V.nV-?

Yes - i.nac.ti.vi.ty, whereas I tend to say in.ac.tive.

Is it even possible to tell the difference between /ɪn.æk/ and /ɪ.næk/?

For me I can only really tell the difference between when the /n/ starts a stressed syllable versus otherwise, both due to accentuation and due to that /n/ that isn't stressed and is intervocalic is flapped for me whereas /n/ at the start of a stressed syllable is [n] for me and is longer and higher pitched. For instance, in this case I can't really tell the difference between i.nac.ti.vi.ty and in.ac.ti.vi.ty, but I can tell that it is in.ac.tive and not *i.nac.tive for this reason.

Does anyone ever pronounce "ewe" as "yo"? Dictionary.com lists this as a possible pronunciation of "ewe", but I have never heard it. Not that I hear the word "ewe" much to start with.