Zompist Bboard Again

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 5:52 am I believe this is my usual pronunciation, though I sometimes insert an extra [i] before the [j]. I don’t see what’s so ‘amazing’ about it — it’s a direct reflection of Japanese Tōkyō

It really isn't; listen to Suzuka's singing, or Wiktionary. Unless you also pronounce "acute" as "ack-yoot", or "mañana" as "man-yanna"?

zompist wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:06 am Unless you also pronounce "acute" as "ack-yoot"

How else would it be pronounced?

or "mañana" as "man-yanna"?

If I ever said this word I would probably try to say it with [ɲ], but that is the pronunciation I would expect from other people, given that English has no phonemic /ɲ/.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:53 am

zompist wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:06 am Unless you also pronounce "acute" as "ack-yoot"

How else would it be pronounced?

or "mañana" as "man-yanna"?

If I ever said this word I would probably try to say it with [ɲ], but that is the pronunciation I would expect from other people, given that English has no phonemic /ɲ/.

I think he's talking about the tendency for previous consonants to assimilate to the /j/.

For Tokyo (in English; I don't speak any Japanese) I have (up to predictable vowel variation) the pronunciation shown as the RP one in Wiktionary (the three syllable /ˈtəʊ.ki.əʊ/). I don't perceive any /j/ between the second and third vowels, though I realise that doesn't mean that others wouldn't perceive a [j].

For /kj/ in English (as in acute) the /k/ is definitely fronted, though I feel it isn't actually as far forward as the /j/, which when combined with the aspiration of the /k/ is close to turning into [ç] here: [ək̟çyʉt] might not be a terrible transcription. (However, phonologically that's still /əˈkjuːt/, so I'm not quite sure how it's different from "ack-yoot".) Likewise /n/ is palatalised and retracted before /j/, but doesn't actually become properly palatal. (Its POA is similar to that of my /tʃ/ and /dʒ/.)

It's clear from the Japanese Wiktionary recording that the /k/ is strongly fronted, to the extent that if I were coming up with my own anglicisation based on it I might even want to use /tʃ/, my English lacking a proper palatal stop.

I have /ˈtoʊˌkjoʊ/ [ˈtʰø̞ˌcʰj̥ø̞(ː)] but to me /ˈtoʊkiˌoʊ/ [ˈtʰø̞ciːˌo̞(ː)] is a valid pronunciation (but it feels a bit dated).

A for mañana I have /mənˈjɑnə/ [mə̃ːnˈjãːnə(ː)].

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:53 am

zompist wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:06 am Unless you also pronounce "acute" as "ack-yoot"

How else would it be pronounced?

"a-kyoot", of course.

zompist wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 8:37 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:53 am

zompist wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:06 am Unless you also pronounce "acute" as "ack-yoot"

How else would it be pronounced?

"a-kyoot", of course.

I have never heard anyone pronounce acute as "ack-yoot", but rather always as "a-kyoot" (for me /əˈkjut/ [əˈcʰj̥yʔ(t)]).

anteallach wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 7:58 am [ək̟çyʉt] might not be a terrible transcription

I agree, though my /k/ may be even more fronted here.

zompist wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 8:37 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:53 am

zompist wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:06 am Unless you also pronounce "acute" as "ack-yoot"

How else would it be pronounced?

"a-kyoot", of course.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 8:57 am I have never heard anyone pronounce acute as "ack-yoot", but rather always as "a-kyoot" (for me /əˈkjut/ [əˈcʰj̥yʔ(t)]).

Well, I don’t understand what the difference between ‘ack-yoot’ and ‘a-kyoot’ is meant to be — aside from syllabification, which I don’t believe is phonemic.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 9:01 am Well, I don’t understand what the difference between ‘ack-yoot’ and ‘a-kyoot’ is meant to be — aside from syllabification, which I don’t believe is phonemic.

How would you analyse the difference between (what's for me) [Vtɹ̠ʷV] and [Vt͡ɹ̠̞ʷV] or [Vʔɹ̠ʷV] and [Vt͡ɹ̠̞ʷʰV], I'd call it /d.ɹ/ against /d.ɹ/ and /t.ɹ/ against /tɹ/. For example ‘headrest’, ‘hairdresser’¹, ‘hat rail’ and ‘the trail’² respectively.

¹ From which I've seen a backformed ‘to hairdress’ in the wild, but not the past that would make a minimal pair
² Again, the first sequence is quite rare because it only occurs in compounds, so I couldn't find a good pairing. I have to just promise that ‘hat rail’ is a single phonological word for me.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 11:38 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 9:01 am Well, I don’t understand what the difference between ‘ack-yoot’ and ‘a-kyoot’ is meant to be — aside from syllabification, which I don’t believe is phonemic.

How would you analyse the difference between (what's for me) [Vtɹ̠ʷV] and [Vt͡ɹ̠̞ʷV] or [Vʔɹ̠ʷV] and [Vt͡ɹ̠̞ʷʰV], I'd call it /d.ɹ/ against /d.ɹ/ and /t.ɹ/ against /tɹ/. For example ‘headrest’, ‘hairdresser’¹, ‘hat rail’ and ‘the trail’² respectively.

¹ From which I've seen a backformed ‘to hairdress’ in the wild, but not the past that would make a minimal pair
² Again, the first sequence is quite rare because it only occurs in compounds, so I couldn't find a good pairing. I have to just promise that ‘hat rail’ is a single phonological word for me.

I would consider in my own idiolect /d.r/ versus /dʒr/ to be an example of an incomplete diachronic sound change, because I have hea/d.r/est but be/dʒr/oom.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 11:38 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 9:01 am Well, I don’t understand what the difference between ‘ack-yoot’ and ‘a-kyoot’ is meant to be — aside from syllabification, which I don’t believe is phonemic.

How would you analyse the difference between (what's for me) [Vtɹ̠ʷV] and [Vt͡ɹ̠̞ʷV] or [Vʔɹ̠ʷV] and [Vt͡ɹ̠̞ʷʰV], I'd call it /d.ɹ/ against /d.ɹ/ and /t.ɹ/ against /tɹ/. For example ‘headrest’, ‘hairdresser’¹, ‘hat rail’ and ‘the trail’² respectively.

¹ From which I've seen a backformed ‘to hairdress’ in the wild, but not the past that would make a minimal pair
² Again, the first sequence is quite rare because it only occurs in compounds, so I couldn't find a good pairing. I have to just promise that ‘hat rail’ is a single phonological word for me.

I think the argument would be that those distinctions are derived from the morpheme boundaries, similarly to John Wells's example of shellfish vs. selfish.