The "How Do You Pronounce X" Thread

[quinterbeck]

My lot is [ɔ] though

Interesting, didn't know that there were varieties of BrE that had such a high LOT. Does it merge with COT and/or CAUGHT?

Yes, there are – it's quite common. A low LOT sounds quite old fashioned now.

On BrE LOT vowel, I would agree with Lērisama. LOT is [ɒ] in RP, which is much decreased in use since when it was first documented, with most domains it appeared in having shifted to other accents. I also have [ɔ] for LOT, as do most speakers I know.

As for 'caught', it's in our NORTH set, which has [o:]

BrE is a useful term when distinguishing writing standards or vocabulary, but when it comes to phonology it's not so useful IMO. England alone is quite diverse in accent (never mind the whole UK) and there's no longer a standard accent with the same dominance that RP once had. Probably the closest to that is the English of southeastern England, or SSBE, which is well described here: The vowels of British English. My own accent is pretty close to this.

Have you seen that post on SSBE before, Lērisama? If not, I'm very curious where you got /ɵ/ from here, because that one was a revelation for me!

¹ You could probably analyse long vowels as /Vɹ/. They pattern like diphthongs, and it would sanify the vowel system to /a ʌ ɛ ɪ ɔ ɵ ə/ + length and various diphthongs

I'm of the opinion the sanification is well underway

[Travis B.]

Interesting, didn't know that there were varieties of BrE that had such a high LOT. Does it merge with COT and/or CAUGHT?

Yes, there are – it's quite common. A low LOT sounds quite old fashioned now.

On BrE LOT vowel, I would agree with Lērisama. LOT is [ɒ] in RP, which is much decreased in use since when it was first documented, with most domains it appeared in having shifted to other accents. I also have [ɔ] for LOT, as do most speakers I know.

As for 'caught', it's in our NORTH set, which has [o:]

BrE is a useful term when distinguishing writing standards or vocabulary, but when it comes to phonology it's not so useful IMO. England alone is quite diverse in accent (never mind the whole UK) and there's no longer a standard accent with the same dominance that RP once had. Probably the closest to that is the English of southeastern England, or SSBE, which is well described here: The vowels of British English. My own accent is pretty close to this.

Have you seen that post on SSBE before, Lērisama? If not, I'm very curious where you got /ɵ/ from here, because that one was a revelation for me!

¹ You could probably analyse long vowels as /Vɹ/. They pattern like diphthongs, and it would sanify the vowel system to /a ʌ ɛ ɪ ɔ ɵ ə/ + length and various diphthongs

I'm of the opinion the sanification is well underway

I would say that GA is the most sane English variety phonologically myself. /æ ɛ ɪ i ɐ ə ɑ ɔ ʊ u aɪ eɪ əɪ* aʊ ɔɪ oʊ/. Simple as that. Even my supposedly insane variety really preserves the sanity of the core GA vowel system (while the NCVS in my own variety rotates the lower vowels, and like many NAE varieties it monophthongizes /eɪ oʊ/ when not prevocalic or word-final and it does naughty things with the mid and high back vowels in proximity to coronals and palatals, it does not really change the underlying character of the vowel system).

* I would consider modern GA as having a phonemic split between /aɪ/ and /əɪ/ as shown by the fiber-tiger contrast present in much of today's GA.

[Nortaneous]

GA has a fairly normal vowel inventory on paper: /æ ɑ e ʌ o i ɚ u/, and /ɚ/ could be analyzed away. But there are some details - the relationship between vowels and coda consonants get more detailed the more sonorous the consonant is, and /l r j w/ are complicated - especially /w/, before which vowels only contrast for height. There's also an ɑ-o merger in parts of the country, which produces an asymmetrical vowel system. There are one or two unstressed vowels depending on what you think of the schwa-schwi contrast; happY could probably (I can't think of a reason not to) be analyzed as /əj/.

I think of BrE LOT as the same vowel as German short o. But maybe this is inaccurate.

[bradrn]

happY could probably (I can't think of a reason not to) be analyzed as /əj/.

In the past, I’ve suggested an analysis where English allows postsyllables /m̩ n̩ ɹ̩ l̩ j̍/ (as in bottom, button, butter, battle, happy respectively). I still think it explains the facts reasonably well — though, mind you, so would /əm ən əɹ əl əj/.

[Darren]

AusEng has a very nice /i ʊ e ə æ a ɒ/ + length except on /ɒ/, diphthongs [ʊi̯ əi̯ əy̯ æi̯ æo̯ ɑe̯ ɔy̯] and marginally phonemic [ɔu̯] which would probably analyse themselves as /ʊi əi əu æi æʊ ae ɒu/ and another /ɒu/ for good measure. With fully unstressed syllables I think you only need /ə/.

Cringe GenAm

Code: Select all

 i  ʉ
 ɪ     ʊ
 e ɵ  o
    ɚ
  ɛ̈ ʌ  ɔ
 æ     ɑ

??? ew


Based AusEng

Code: Select all

 i     ʊ
 e  ə
 æ  a  ɒ

[bradrn]

[ʊi̯ əi̯ əy̯ æi̯ æo̯ ɑe̯ ɔy̯]

[ʊi̯]? Where do you get that from?

But otherwise, I really like this analysis. It’s much cleaner than how I’m used to thinking of English phonology.

[Lērisama]

On BrE LOT vowel, I would agree with Lērisama. LOT is [ɒ] in RP, which is much decreased in use since when it was first documented, with most domains it appeared in having shifted to other accents. I also have [ɔ] for LOT, as do most speakers I know.

As for 'caught', it's in our NORTH set, which has [o:]

Yes, this is my understanding too

BrE is a useful term when distinguishing writing standards or vocabulary, but when it comes to phonology it's not so useful IMO. England alone is quite diverse in accent (never mind the whole UK) and there's no longer a standard accent with the same dominance that RP once had.

Yes, very true. The UK is not the USA – we've had roughly a thousand years for our dialects to diverge, and they make excellent use of it.

Probably the closest to that is the English of southeastern England, or SSBE, which is well described here: The vowels of British English. My own accent is pretty close to this.

As is mine. The major differences are NURSE being significantly lower than COMMA (they are still phonemically related, but [əː] feels wrong) and further lowering of STRUT to something like [ɑ̽], although that is a pain to type, so I usually go with /ʌ/ still. It also sometimes patterns as my short version of START/PALM, and is where my PRICE starts.

Have you seen that post on SSBE before, Lērisama? If not, I'm very curious where you got /ɵ/ from here, because that one was a revelation for me!

It looks very familiar; I almost certainly have. It's very good, so I'm surprised I didn't save the link somewhere

[quote

¹ You could probably analyse long vowels as /Vɹ/. They pattern like diphthongs, and it would sanify the vowel system to /a ʌ ɛ ɪ ɔ ɵ ə/ + length and various diphthongs

I'm of the opinion the sanification is well underway
[/quote]

Of course. Just do some broad transcriptiom and we have a vowel system of /a ɑ ɛ ɔ i ʉ ə/ + diphthongs, which looks practically normal.

Just seen Darren's post. I personally need /ɪ/ in fully unstressee syllables as well as /ə/, and that table looks wonderful. C.f. one for my ideolect

Code: Select all

ɪ ɵ
ɛ ə ɔ
 a  ɑ

. Lovely and sane

[bradrn]

Of course. Just do some broad transcriptiom and we have a vowel system of /a ɑ ɛ ɔ i ʉ ə/ + diphthongs, which looks practically normal.

Whatever happened to TRAP and STRUT here? (I’m guessing TRAP is /a/ and STRUT merged into /ə/, but not quite sure.)

[Lērisama]

Of course. Just do some broad transcriptiom and we have a vowel system of /a ɑ ɛ ɔ i ʉ ə/ + diphthongs, which looks practically normal.

Whatever happened to TRAP and STRUT here? (I’m guessing TRAP is /a/ and STRUT merged into /ə/, but not quite sure.)

TRAP is indeed /a/, for which see the post Quinterbeck linked. STRUT is [ɑ̽] in my ideolect (but does very more than most vowels), and I've analysed it as short PALM/START for this, so it is covered under /ɑ/

[Darren]

[ʊi̯ əi̯ əy̯ æi̯ æo̯ ɑe̯ ɔy̯]

[ʊi̯]? Where do you get that from?

Choice... what's your CHOICE?

[Darren]

As is mine. The major differences are NURSE being significantly lower than COMMA (they are still phonemically related, but [əː] feels wrong)

That's interesting, my NURSE is [ɵː] and COMMA/LETTER is [ɜ]

[bradrn]

[ʊi̯ əi̯ əy̯ æi̯ æo̯ ɑe̯ ɔy̯]

[ʊi̯]? Where do you get that from?

Choice... what's your CHOICE?

[o̞i̯], I’d say. Starting as high as [ʊ] sounds quite weird to me.

As is mine. The major differences are NURSE being significantly lower than COMMA (they are still phonemically related, but [əː] feels wrong)

That's interesting, my NURSE is [ɵː] and COMMA/LETTER is [ɜ]

While I have [əː] and [ɐ~ɜ].

[Lērisama]

As is mine. The major differences are NURSE being significantly lower than COMMA (they are still phonemically related, but [əː] feels wrong)

That's interesting, my NURSE is [ɵː] and COMMA/LETTER is [ɜ]

Does that mean your NURSE is your long form of FOOT? My NURSE is something like [ɜː~ɞː] and my COMMA is [ə] (but lowered to something like [ɐ] at the end of a word)

[Darren]

Does that mean your NURSE is your long form of FOOT? My NURSE is something like [ɜː~ɞː] and my COMMA is [ə] (but lowered to something like [ɐ] at the end of a word)

The long form of FOOT is definitely NORTH/THOUGHT/FORCE/CURE; it's one of the closest short/long pairs in exact quality. I'd still analyse NURSE as long COMMA/LETTER, although they never contrast because of stress so they're not like other pairs.

[o̞i̯], I’d say. Starting as high as [ʊ] sounds quite weird to me.

Well it seems to be the norm here. Wiktionary says [oi] with the same onset as N/TH/F/C [oː] but they're both distinctly raised here.

[Nortaneous]

Are there US dialects that have the cot-caught merger but not the poor-pour merger, and have long vowel diphthongization and l-breaking?

In the VC model, l-breaking is easy to explain as epenthesis to break up a disallowed coda cluster /jl/ (it never coexists with PRICE monophthongization), similarly to the common disyllabic pronunciation of Carl and Charles. But the VC model has a hard time with the cot-caught merger, since CHOICE doesn't merge into PRICE, nor NORTH/FORCE into START. CHOICE could be called /uj/ (ignore that [ʊj] exists as an interjection), but you can't do that with NORTH/FORCE. So what's the vowel of NORTH/FORCE?

Phonetically, for me at least, CHOICE and NORTH/FORCE have what I think is essentially the same onset, which is not a vowel that occurs anywhere else. So maybe the least bad option is to analyze those dialects as having an /o/ that can only appear before /j w/.

(I do have the poor-pour merger, but IMD /ur/ and /jur/ do not undergo parallel developments: /ur/ merges into /or/, but /jur/ becomes /jɚ/. This is not universal in the US - it's not uncommon to hear "sure" pronounced "shore" - but there's also the joke about the "Shirley exception", the well-known principle in voters' consideration of proposed laws that surely there'll be an exception.)

[Travis B.]

I personally don't like the VC model for my own dialect for a number of reasons.

• Some diphthong nuclei such as [ɔ] as in [ɔɪ̯] and [ɔʁˤ] do not exist in isolation.
• It makes it hard to deal with some contrasts between what I term "primary" and "secondary" diphthongs. Take for instance pie [pʰăĕ̯~pʰae̯] versus potty [pʰai̯].
• The concept of rhotic dipthongs makes it easier to deal with vowels followed by /r/. If one does away with diphthongs as a concept it makes it much harder to deal with vowels' distribution before /r/. Take for instance the contrast between the rhotic diphthong in mare [mɛ̝(ː)ʁˤ] versus the non-diphthongal matter [mɛːʁˤ].

[Travis B.]

(I do have the poor-pour merger, but IMD /ur/ and /jur/ do not undergo parallel developments: /ur/ merges into /or/, but /jur/ becomes /jɚ/. This is not universal in the US - it's not uncommon to hear "sure" pronounced "shore" - but there's also the joke about the "Shirley exception", the well-known principle in voters' consideration of proposed laws that surely there'll be an exception.)

I personally lack the poor-pour merger, and while I do hear people here sometimes merge the two I have never heard anyone here merge tour and tore. As for sure in the dialect here it never merges with shore but rather is [ɕʁ̩ˤ(ː)] when unstressed in everyday speech but may become [ɕʷy̆ŭ̯ʁˤ~ɕʷyu̯ʁˤ] when stressed or in careful speech.

[jal]

I personally lack the poor-pour merger, and while I do hear people here sometimes merge the two I have never heard anyone here merge tour and tore. As for sure in the dialect here it never merges with shore but rather is [ɕʁ̩ˤ(ː)] when unstressed in everyday speech but may become [ɕʷy̆ŭ̯ʁˤ~ɕʷyu̯ʁˤ] when stressed or in careful speech.

Though I find your analyses of the phonetics of your local accent mightely interesting, I have such a hard time reading that narrow IPA :D.


JAL

[Travis B.]

I personally lack the poor-pour merger, and while I do hear people here sometimes merge the two I have never heard anyone here merge tour and tore. As for sure in the dialect here it never merges with shore but rather is [ɕʁ̩ˤ(ː)] when unstressed in everyday speech but may become [ɕʷy̆ŭ̯ʁˤ~ɕʷyu̯ʁˤ] when stressed or in careful speech.

Though I find your analyses of the phonetics of your local accent mightely interesting, I have such a hard time reading that narrow IPA .

Okay, for a bit of synchronic analysis explication... sure is either /ʃər/ or /ʃur/ (conventional /ʃɜːr/ or /ʃʊr/) depending on stress, carefulness, and register. /ʃ/ is [ɕ] before /ər/ and [ɕʷ] before /u/. /ər/ is [ʁ̩ˤ] before a fortis obstruent or utterance-finally, otherwise it is [ʁ̩ˤː]. As for /u/, it is [y̆ŭ̯] or [yu̯] after a coronal or palatal and before a dorsal; it is the former before a fortis obstruent or utterance finally, otherwise it is the latter.

[Linguoboy]

stent

I was amused to hear my late husband use /stɪnt/ because I assumed it was a pronunciation he picked up from my pin-pen merged speech, but recently I saw a non-native speaker use the spelling "stint", which makes me wonder if the variant with /ɪ/ is more widespread than I thought.