Zompist Bboard Again

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 11:11 pm Apparently RP has /ˈpɒlkə/ for polka, which seems really odd to me (I myself have /ˈpoʊkə/ [ˈpʰo̞kə(ː)] here; my analogue to the RP pronunciation would be *[ˈpʰaɯ̯kə(ː)], which feels really strange).

My LOT/GOAT merger before /l/ means I don't know which it should be, but I definitely have /l/ in there. I think it would have been borrowed into English too late for the /l/ loss which happened in native words like folk and yolk.

anteallach wrote: ↑Thu Aug 28, 2025 1:10 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 11:11 pm Apparently RP has /ˈpɒlkə/ for polka, which seems really odd to me (I myself have /ˈpoʊkə/ [ˈpʰo̞kə(ː)] here; my analogue to the RP pronunciation would be *[ˈpʰaɯ̯kə(ː)], which feels really strange).

My LOT/GOAT merger before /l/ means I don't know which it should be, but I definitely have /l/ in there. I think it would have been borrowed into English too late for the /l/ loss which happened in native words like folk and yolk.

In AusEng it's /ˈpɐy̯kə/, merged with "poker", i.e. with the vowel of "yolk" not "poll". This might be by analogy with words like "folk" and "yolk". In fact no (monomorphemic) native English words have /ɒlk/ or /oʊ̯lk/, although in my dialect there's a pre-consonantal gulf/golf merger (STRUT with GOAL before /l/) so words like "sulk" and "bulk" are [ɐʊ̯ɫk].

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 11:11 pmApparently RP has /ˈpɒlkə/ for polka, which seems really odd to me

Why odd? There's more words where American English lost an "l" but the Brits retained it (e.g. "solder").


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 28, 2025 5:36 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 11:11 pmApparently RP has /ˈpɒlkə/ for polka, which seems really odd to me

Why odd? There's more words where American English lost an "l" but the Brits retained it (e.g. "solder").

It is just the /ɒlk/ sequence that feels odd to me intuitively.

jal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 28, 2025 5:36 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 11:11 pmApparently RP has /ˈpɒlkə/ for polka, which seems really odd to me

Why odd? There's more words where American English lost an "l" but the Brits retained it (e.g. "solder").

One thing -- the British pronunciation of solder is actually a spelling pronunciation; the word was previously souder, reflecting l-vocalization in Old French, but orthographic ⟨l⟩ was added as re-Latinization but was initially not pronounced as such; the pronunciation with /l/ only arose later from the influence of the spelling.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Aug 28, 2025 1:08 pmthe British pronunciation of solder is actually a spelling pronunciation; the word was previously souder, reflecting l-vocalization in Old French, but orthographic ⟨l⟩ was added as re-Latinization but was initially not pronounced as such; the pronunciation with /l/ only arose later from the influence of the spelling.

Fair enough. "Polka" did have the "l" originally though, though perhaps the lack of native words with -olk- (or the l-vocalization of them like in "yolk") caused it to lose it?


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 28, 2025 3:30 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Aug 28, 2025 1:08 pmthe British pronunciation of solder is actually a spelling pronunciation; the word was previously souder, reflecting l-vocalization in Old French, but orthographic ⟨l⟩ was added as re-Latinization but was initially not pronounced as such; the pronunciation with /l/ only arose later from the influence of the spelling.

Fair enough. "Polka" did have the "l" originally though, though perhaps the lack of native words with -olk- (or the l-vocalization of them like in "yolk") caused it to lose it?

Yes, in this case the original Czech did have /l/ in it; I agree, this is probably due to the influence of the lack of native /oʊlk/ following from sound change affecting words like folk and yolk.

I'm wondering if there's an English word or term for a particular facial expression. In German, I would probably describe that expression as "feierlich", but I'm not sure how I'd translate that word into English, in either that context or any other.

The expression I mean might be described as something like "simultaneously happy and earnest". That is, not a trace of a smile, but no sign of anger, frustration, or unhappiness, either. You can sometimes see it in romantic couples when they're holding each other while looking at each other.

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Aug 29, 2025 9:30 am I'm wondering if there's an English word or term for a particular facial expression. In German, I would probably describe that expression as "feierlich", but I'm not sure how I'd translate that word into English, in either that context or any other.

The expression I mean might be described as something like "simultaneously happy and earnest". That is, not a trace of a smile, but no sign of anger, frustration, or unhappiness, either. You can sometimes see it in romantic couples when they're holding each other while looking at each other.

Wiktionary translates feierlich as "solemn, ceremonious", but I am not sure if that is what you really mean.

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Aug 29, 2025 9:30 am You can sometimes see it in romantic couples when they're holding each other while looking at each other.

Not necessarily a translation, but I'd probably describe that as "serene" or "rapt".

zompist wrote: ↑Fri Aug 29, 2025 3:37 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Aug 29, 2025 9:30 am You can sometimes see it in romantic couples when they're holding each other while looking at each other.

Not necessarily a translation, but I'd probably describe that as "serene" or "rapt".

Those seem to be the right words to me.

jal wrote:And a better example of the latter Chinese, where fully different languages are seen as "Chinese" by many people, even in China itself, if I've been told correctly.

I don't know Chinese, but I read once that because its varieties vary more in sound than in syntax/grammar, and the writing system is logographic instead of phonic, it makes the written form almost the same, which helps push people to think of them as a single language.

zompist wrote: ↑Fri Aug 29, 2025 3:37 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Aug 29, 2025 9:30 am You can sometimes see it in romantic couples when they're holding each other while looking at each other.

Not necessarily a translation, but I'd probably describe that as "serene" or "rapt".

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Aug 29, 2025 3:43 pm

Those seem to be the right words to me.

Thank you!

How does everybody pronounce "born", "torn", and "worn"? Are they one syllable or two? (Do they rhyme with "corn", or with "Lauren"?)

I have two syllables. Only verbs with "-n" ending are affected, because of analogy with other verbs where the "-n" ending takes a whole syllable ("broken, eaten, given", etc), I assume.

jcb wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:52 pm How does everybody pronounce "born", "torn", and "worn"? Are they one syllable or two? (Do they rhyme with "corn", or with "Lauren"?)

I have two syllables. Only verbs with "-n" ending are affected, because of analogy with other verbs where the "-n" ending takes a whole syllable ("broken, eaten, given", etc), I assume.

They are [ˈpoːn ˈtʰoːn ˈwoːn ˈkʰoːn ˈlɔɹ̠n̠̩] for me. Does this mean your “worn” is homophonous with “warren” (which is [wɔɹ̠n̠̩] for me)

Lērisama wrote: ↑Mon Sep 01, 2025 4:28 am

jcb wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:52 pm How does everybody pronounce "born", "torn", and "worn"? Are they one syllable or two? (Do they rhyme with "corn", or with "Lauren"?)

I have two syllables. Only verbs with "-n" ending are affected, because of analogy with other verbs where the "-n" ending takes a whole syllable ("broken, eaten, given", etc), I assume.

They are [ˈpoːn ˈtʰoːn ˈwoːn ˈkʰoːn ˈlɔɹ̠n̠̩] for me. Does this mean your “worn” is homophonous with “warren” (which is [wɔɹ̠n̠̩] for me)

All almost identical to my realisations.

jcb wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:52 pm How does everybody pronounce "born", "torn", and "worn"? Are they one syllable or two? (Do they rhyme with "corn", or with "Lauren"?)

I have two syllables. Only verbs with "-n" ending are affected, because of analogy with other verbs where the "-n" ending takes a whole syllable ("broken, eaten, given", etc), I assume.

I have:

born: [ˈb̥ɔ̃(ː)ʁ̃ˤ(n)]
torn: [ˈtʰɔ̃(ː)ʁ̃ˤ(n)]
worn: [ˈwɔ̃(ː)ʁ̃ˤ(n)]
corn: [ˈkʰɔ̃(ː)ʁ̃ˤ(n)]
Lauren: [ˈʟ̞ɔːʁˤɘ̃(ː)(n)]
warren: [ˈwɔːʁˤɘ̃(ː)(n)]
broken: [ˈb̥ʁˤo̞kɘ̃(ː)(n)]
eaten: [ˈiʔn̩(ː)]
given: [ˈɡ̥ɨːvɘ̃(ː)(n)]

Hence for me born, torn, and worn are monosyllables and worn and warren are not homophones.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Mon Sep 01, 2025 4:28 am

jcb wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:52 pm How does everybody pronounce "born", "torn", and "worn"? Are they one syllable or two? (Do they rhyme with "corn", or with "Lauren"?)

I have two syllables. Only verbs with "-n" ending are affected, because of analogy with other verbs where the "-n" ending takes a whole syllable ("broken, eaten, given", etc), I assume.

They are [ˈpoːn ˈtʰoːn ˈwoːn ˈkʰoːn ˈlɔɹ̠n̠̩] for me. Does this mean your “worn” is homophonous with “warren” (which is [wɔɹ̠n̠̩] for me)

Yes, my "worn" is homophonous with "warren", which I'd describe as /worn=/ or /worIn/.

jcb wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:52 pm How does everybody pronounce "born", "torn", and "worn"? Are they one syllable or two? (Do they rhyme with "corn", or with "Lauren"?)

One syllable only, as also "corn".

jcb wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:52 pm How does everybody pronounce "born", "torn", and "worn"? Are they one syllable or two? (Do they rhyme with "corn", or with "Lauren"?)

I am having great difficulty deducing the meaning of the question - it only makes sense if we assume that many of the audience are not people!

The three words have an existence independent of the verbs, so I am not surprised that I do not reform them from the verbs, more precisely from the simple pasts, but use the inherited monosyllabic pronunciations. My pronunciation is non-rhotic. If I did reform them with a syllabic ending, I would expect the forms to have the same vowels as the simple past, not a new vowel as in "Lauren", i.e. not as in the first syllables of foreign or sporran.