Zompist Bboard Again

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:46 am Schadenfreude → sa꞉dənfəluyit

You don't have d or f. Anyway, I think it might be way less recognizable than you think. At least that's what I found out when I did my survey a while ago.

alynnidalar wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:17 am

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:27 pm Ii [i​] as in happy or kit (not as in price).

I assume both pronunciations are acceptable here?

Actually [ i] is the desired pronunciation, but [ I] is acceptable. I'm not really sure what's going with those word final Y's tbh.

alynnidalar wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:17 am

Nn [n] as in thin. When it is followed by a consonant, it may be pronounced in the same place in the mouth as the following consonant.

I'm not sure this would be comprehensible to the average person, who I doubt is consciously aware of where they produce sounds at all. I think you would be better off either not having this note and letting allophony have her way, or give specific examples instead.

Oh right, I was going to have examples here, but haven't done it yet...

alynnidalar wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:17 am

Rr [r] as in run or like the r-like sound some American En. dialects have in the middle of water. Note that some speakers might pronounce this similar to L, but this is not recommended.

Not sure your average Engish speaker would actually pick up on a flap/tap as being "r-like". I'd say they're more likely to think of it as being similar to /d/, in fact--sometimes you'll see <water> written dialectically as <wadder> or something like that.

Ah. The thing is that [r\`] is a less recommendable realization. I will take almost any rhotic, but a tap or a plain [r\] would be better. But it's impossible to talk about these things with the target audience. :/ I'll consider removing the water example...

alynnidalar wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:17 am

Tt [t] as in tin. Note that some speakers might pronounce this similar to D, but this is not recommended.

Given that there's no /d/ in the "native" orthography, it doesn't seem like it'd cause much confusion to allow this kind of variance.

Voicing of unvoiced consonants falls into the "unrecommended but accepted" category. I thought I'd include these kind of notes so that people will know what's going on if they meet someone with a totally different accent. But maybe this is superfluous information?

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:00 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:46 am Schadenfreude → sa꞉dənfəluyit

You don't have d or f.

Sorry! You’re quite right, that should be sa꞉tənhəluyit.

Anyway, I think it might be way less recognizable than you think. At least that's what I found out when I did my survey a while ago.

Oh, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if this were the case.

Amongst those of you who stop initial /ð/, do you tend more towards a dental or an alveolar realization?

I used to pronounce it as a dental stop unconditionally/in all environments. For the longest time, I simply refused to believe that English had dental fricatives. I thought only Spanish had those. EDIT: Spanish and I guess Catalan.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:18 pm Amongst those of you who stop initial /ð/, do you tend more towards a dental or an alveolar realization?

dental, clearly distinguished from /d/

I used to pronounce initial /ð/ as an alveolar [t~d] but in more recent times have switched to a dental [t̪~d̪]. (I note that my mother pronounces it as an alveolar [t~d], and there was a period in high school where I pronounced it as [z] of all things.)

[z] is how it's pronounced in a stereotypical French accent and I think usually in stereotypical German accents as well.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:18 pm Amongst those of you who stop initial /ð/, do you tend more towards a dental or an alveolar realization?

My usual realisation is probably front-alveolar, with the tongue striking the point just before the curve of the alveolar ridge (if I'm right, not quite pre-alveolar), though dental, alveolar, and even post-alveolar realisations are possible. Any distinction with /d/ seems to be inconsistent at best.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:54 pm I used to pronounce initial /ð/ as an alveolar [t~d] but in more recent times have switched to a dental [t̪~d̪]. (I note that my mother pronounces it as an alveolar [t~d], and there was a period in high school where I pronounced it as [z] of all things.)

Wait, you devoice initial /ð/ sometimes?

Vijay wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:03 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:54 pm I used to pronounce initial /ð/ as an alveolar [t~d] but in more recent times have switched to a dental [t̪~d̪]. (I note that my mother pronounces it as an alveolar [t~d], and there was a period in high school where I pronounced it as [z] of all things.)

Wait, you devoice initial /ð/ sometimes?

I don't have a real contrast between voiced and voiceless initial unaspirated plosives; they are largely in free variation, aside from voiced pronunciations being more likely when preceded by a sonorant. (The real contrast in this position is between unaspirated and aspirated plosives.)

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:11 am

Vijay wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:03 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:54 pm I used to pronounce initial /ð/ as an alveolar [t~d] but in more recent times have switched to a dental [t̪~d̪]. (I note that my mother pronounces it as an alveolar [t~d], and there was a period in high school where I pronounced it as [z] of all things.)

Wait, you devoice initial /ð/ sometimes?

I don't have a real contrast between voiced and voiceless initial unaspirated plosives; they are largely in free variation, aside from voiced pronunciations being more likely when preceded by a sonorant. (The real contrast in this position is between unaspirated and aspirated plosives.)

Oh okay, never mind. I think I confused your square brackets with slashes for some weird reason.

Something that came up when I was writing a post earlier today:

What is the most common way to describe or signify "the night between Day X and Day Y"?

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:13 amWhat is the most common way to describe or signify "the night between Day X and Day Y"?

"[day X] night"

For instance:

"Tuesday night" = the night between Tuesday and Wednesday
"Halloween night" = the night between Halloween and All Saints Day
"the night of the 14th" = the night between the 14th and the 15th

There are a few cases where the night before a significant day is designated "eve", e.g. "Christmas Eve", "New Year's Eve". But these terms are somewhat ambiguous, since they can also refer to the entire day as well. To be absolutely clear, you need to say e.g. "the night before Christmas".

Ah, thank you!

I got two questions of usage:

- Do some kids really grow up adressing their father as 'sir?'
- Would anyone use sir/ma'am to strangers in public settings? As in 'excuse me, sir/ma'am' while getting off the bus, or at a supermarket checkout?

I'm of course interested in difference between British / American usage?

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:47 am- Do some kids really grow up adressing their father as 'sir?'

I've heard that this is the case and I've seen it depicted in films but I can't say that I've actually witnessed it in real life.

Ares Land wrote:- Would anyone use sir/ma'am to strangers in public settings? As in 'excuse me, sir/ma'am' while getting off the bus, or at a supermarket checkout?

All. The. Time.

When I was young, this was a general societal expectation, at least in the South and Midwest. It's weakened some since then, but I'm never surprised to be addressed as "sir"[*] by strangers nor do I take it amiss. Nowadays, with the emerging societal prerogative not to assume a stranger's gender, I've seen a lot of discussion of what the epicene equivalent(s) would be and no clear consensus.

Where I really feel the need of it is in trying to get a stranger's attention. "Sir!"/"Ma'am!" has always been the most common polite way to do this in public (say, to let someone know they've dropped something or they're going the wrong way) and none of the proposed alternatives feel acceptable to me. (Yelling "Hey!", for instance, is so rude that it automatically implies anger or upset to me.)

[*] I have also been addressed as "ma'am" or "miss" before and confess to being very amused at how effusively apologetic the person was when they realised my gender.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:47 am - Do some kids really grow up adressing their father as 'sir?'

In the rural United States, this does occur sometimes, but it's in steep decline, from what I understand, and I haven't observed it in more recent decades. I did not grow up doing this, and I think, as a child, I would've found the suggestion that I ought to address close relatives in that way... unpleasant, if not absurd. I was resistant to using them at all as a child.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:47 am - Would anyone use sir/ma'am to strangers in public settings? As in 'excuse me, sir/ma'am' while getting off the bus, or at a supermarket checkout?

It depends on why I'm addressing them. If I were in customer service, yes. If I had to get the attention of a stranger in a polite and unabrupt fashion, I would probably use it only until I had their attention, and not after, and even then usually only with older (or possibly agitated) people, so as to appear as unabrupt as possible. I think I might be more likely to ask a stranger directions with, "Sorry, but would you be able to tell me where [whatever] is". Using either very regularly is, in my experience, going somewhat out of fashion, and hearing younger people address me as "sir" makes me immediately think they had a fairly strict upbringing.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:41 am [*] I have also been addressed as "ma'am" or "miss" before and confess to being very amused at how effusively apologetic the person was when they realised my gender.

Despite being extremely obviously male (I have an ambiguous slightly verging-on-feminine name in real life but not as femininised as something like Ashley), I've had this happened when working jobs that were frequently worked by women. I tend to laugh about it (and do find it genuinely amusing), and yes, they are very effusively apologetic.

Thanks!

While in the US, it seemed to me that nobody employed sir/ma'am outside of security guards. That said, I spent most of my time was spent in NYC and New Yorkers have a reputation to uphold