Zompist Bboard Again

Posted: **Mon Nov 03, 2025 7:07 pm**

jcb wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 6:09 pm
Man in Space wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 8:33 pm
jcb wrote: ↑Sat Nov 01, 2025 4:25 pm As this thread has already talked about before, in American English, some dialects raise /{/ before /n/.

My question: Has any dialect raised this /{/ so far that it's merged with /ej/? (If so, I guess we could call it the "man-mane(-main) merger".)
It’s before the velar nasal instead, but otherwise I do this.
I too raise /{/ before /N/ (and /g/), but it's to [{j], except in "hang" which indeed has /ej/. But, unlike many people, I don't raise /{/ before /n/.

I raise TRAP before most cases of /ŋ/ to [e̞(ː)] so as to merge with FACE (but not in pancake or Bernanke) and sometimes I allophonically raise TRAP before /g/ to [ĕ̞ə̯̆]~[e̞ə̯].

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2025 1:30 am**

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 7:07 pm
jcb wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 6:09 pm
Man in Space wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 8:33 pm It’s before the velar nasal instead, but otherwise I do this.
I too raise /{/ before /N/ (and /g/), but it's to [{j], except in "hang" which indeed has /ej/. But, unlike many people, I don't raise /{/ before /n/.
I raise TRAP before most cases of /ŋ/ to [e̞(ː)] so as to merge with FACE (but not in pancake or Bernanke) and sometimes I allophonically raise TRAP before /g/ to [ĕ̞ə̯̆]~[e̞ə̯].

You have /N/ in "pancake"?

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2025 2:22 am**

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 1:30 am You have /N/ in "pancake"?

I think all L1 English varieties do

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2025 4:14 am**

Darren wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 2:22 am
jcb wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 1:30 am You have /N/ in "pancake"?
I think all L1 English varieties do

Not with slashes unless GenAm [eə] is also phonemic - otherwise how to explain p[eə]ncake but b[æj]nker? And it's a transparent compound.

/ŋ/ can almost certainly be eliminated with syllabification tricks, or contrastive secondary stress tricks (/ij ʌw ɝ/ vs. /ɨj əw ər/?) if you don't like the possibility of ambiguous or contrastive syllabification. But I don't think there's any reason to postulate phonemic /eə/ for GenAm. (It's obviously phonemic in some Northern Mid-Atlantic dialects, though.)

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2025 5:04 am**

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 4:14 am
Darren wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 2:22 am
jcb wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 1:30 am You have /N/ in "pancake"?
I think all L1 English varieties do
Not with slashes unless GenAm [eə] is also phonemic - otherwise how to explain p[eə]ncake but b[æj]nker? And it's a transparent compound.

/ŋ/ can almost certainly be eliminated with syllabification tricks, or contrastive secondary stress tricks (/ij ʌw ɝ/ vs. /ɨj əw ər/?) if you don't like the possibility of ambiguous or contrastive syllabification. But I don't think there's any reason to postulate phonemic /eə/ for GenAm. (It's obviously phonemic in some Northern Mid-Atlantic dialects, though.)

ah yes i should of clarified i meant [ŋ]

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2025 9:18 am**

Darren wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 5:04 am
Nortaneous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 4:14 am
Darren wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 2:22 am

I think all L1 English varieties do
Not with slashes unless GenAm [eə] is also phonemic - otherwise how to explain p[eə]ncake but b[æj]nker? And it's a transparent compound.

/ŋ/ can almost certainly be eliminated with syllabification tricks, or contrastive secondary stress tricks (/ij ʌw ɝ/ vs. /ɨj əw ər/?) if you don't like the possibility of ambiguous or contrastive syllabification. But I don't think there's any reason to postulate phonemic /eə/ for GenAm. (It's obviously phonemic in some Northern Mid-Atlantic dialects, though.)
ah yes i should of clarified i meant [ŋ]

My point is that I have neither /N/ or [N], but /n/ and [n]. The word's status as a transparent compound prevents assimilation.
"pancake" = /p{n.kejk/ = ["pʰ{n.cejc]

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2025 9:27 am**

In the English here /n/ regularly assimilates across morpheme and word boundaries to following plosives with regard to POA; e.g. I have [ˈpʰɛ̆ə̯̆ŋˌke̞ʔk]. This is such that as a kid I thought the Hoan Bridge in Milwaukee was the "Home Bridge", because the /n/ in Hoan assimilates as [m] very consistently (and Mayor Hoan was before my time).

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2025 4:48 pm**

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 9:18 am My point is that I have neither /N/ or [N], but /n/ and [n]. The word's status as a transparent compound prevents assimilation.
"pancake" = /p{n.kejk/ = ["pʰ{n.cejc]

I would describe it as semantically opaque, and I seem to have either in this word. For me, the rejection of final /ŋɡ/ in a word is a fairly weak rule (but stronger than the rejection of final /mb/). I would say that English 'dentals' assimilate their point of articulation fairly freely.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2025 9:50 am**

In very careful speech I may have [n] in pancake, but I wonder how much of that is the force of orthography at work.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2025 11:20 am**

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 4:48 pm
jcb wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 9:18 am My point is that I have neither /N/ or [N], but /n/ and [n]. The word's status as a transparent compound prevents assimilation.
"pancake" = /p{n.kejk/ = ["pʰ{n.cejc]
I would describe it as semantically opaque, and I seem to have either in this word. For me, the rejection of final /ŋɡ/ in a word is a fairly weak rule (but stronger than the rejection of final /mb/). I would say that English 'dentals' assimilate their point of articulation fairly freely.

I suppose that it's not as transparent as a word like "blackbird", but it's still made up of two common english words, and is more transparent than a word like "cranberry".

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2025 12:26 pm**

jcb wrote: ↑Thu Nov 06, 2025 11:20 am
Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 4:48 pm
jcb wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 9:18 am My point is that I have neither /N/ or [N], but /n/ and [n]. The word's status as a transparent compound prevents assimilation.
"pancake" = /p{n.kejk/ = ["pʰ{n.cejc]
I would describe it as semantically opaque, and I seem to have either in this word. For me, the rejection of final /ŋɡ/ in a word is a fairly weak rule (but stronger than the rejection of final /mb/). I would say that English 'dentals' assimilate their point of articulation fairly freely.
I suppose that it's not as transparent as a word like "blackbird", but it's still made up of two common english words, and is more transparent than a word like "cranberry".

To me at least, assimilation of /n/ is not blocked by transparent compounds, after all it productively operates across word boundaries quite consistently for me.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2025 1:19 pm**

jcb wrote: ↑Thu Nov 06, 2025 11:20 am I suppose that it's not as transparent as a word like "blackbird", but it's still made up of two common english words, and is more transparent than a word like "cranberry".

But I don't consider pancakes to be cakes.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2025 2:48 pm**

Richard W wrote: ↑Thu Nov 06, 2025 1:19 pm
jcb wrote: ↑Thu Nov 06, 2025 11:20 am I suppose that it's not as transparent as a word like "blackbird", but it's still made up of two common english words, and is more transparent than a word like "cranberry".
But I don't consider pancakes to be cakes.

A witch doctor is neither a doctor nor a witch, and a fuckwind is neither a wind nor a fuck.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2025 3:54 pm**

Richard W wrote: ↑Thu Nov 06, 2025 1:19 pm
jcb wrote: ↑Thu Nov 06, 2025 11:20 am I suppose that it's not as transparent as a word like "blackbird", but it's still made up of two common english words, and is more transparent than a word like "cranberry".
But I don't consider pancakes to be cakes.

And people don't generally live in lighthouses.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2025 4:44 pm**

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Thu Nov 06, 2025 2:48 pm
Richard W wrote: ↑Thu Nov 06, 2025 1:19 pm
jcb wrote: ↑Thu Nov 06, 2025 11:20 am I suppose that it's not as transparent as a word like "blackbird", but it's still made up of two common english words, and is more transparent than a word like "cranberry".
But I don't consider pancakes to be cakes.
A witch doctor is neither a doctor nor a witch,

jcb wrote:And people don't generally live in lighthouses.

All these examples depend on thinking in prototypes. Sure, a pancake doesn't look much like a chocolate layer cake. It is "a breadlike food made from a dough or batter that is usually fried or baked in small flat shapes and is often unleavened", as MW has it.

People don't live in doghouses, publishing houses, or the Houses of Parliament either, but these are easily understood extensions of the word.

A witch doctor, in the sense of shaman, isn't a M.D., but is a person you go to for healing or counseling. The combo suggests "supernatural physician" which is pretty much what is meant.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2025 10:38 pm**

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Nov 06, 2025 4:44 pm
Nortaneous wrote: ↑Thu Nov 06, 2025 2:48 pm
Richard W wrote: ↑Thu Nov 06, 2025 1:19 pm
But I don't consider pancakes to be cakes.
A witch doctor is neither a doctor nor a witch,

jcb wrote:And people don't generally live in lighthouses.
All these examples depend on thinking in prototypes. Sure, a pancake doesn't look much like a chocolate layer cake. It is "a breadlike food made from a dough or batter that is usually fried or baked in small flat shapes and is often unleavened", as MW has it.

People don't live in doghouses, publishing houses, or the Houses of Parliament either, but these are easily understood extensions of the word.

A witch doctor, in the sense of shaman, isn't a M.D., but is a person you go to for healing or counseling. The combo suggests "supernatural physician" which is pretty much what is meant.

Yes, this is what I meant. "blackbird" doesn't have this problem, so it's fully transparent. Next are compounds like "pancake" and "lighthouse", which I guess we can call semi-transparent. Then there are compounds like "cranberry" and "acorn", which have otherwise dead morphemes in them, and are liable to be reanalyzed with living morphemes ("eggcorn"). Then there are words that were originally compounds, then stopped being seen/pronounced as compounds, then became compounds again by force of spelling and/or reanalysis, like "waistcoat/weskit" and (sort of) "posthumous".

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2025 8:34 am**

In the case of acorn both components are living morphemes, they've just been obscured by sound changes.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2025 9:18 am**

Starbeam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 07, 2025 8:34 am In the case of acorn both components are living morphemes, they've just been obscured by sound changes.

Actually, acorn apparently isn't a compound at all -- according to Etymonline, it goes back to OE æcern and is cognate with ON akarn, Dutch aker, LG Ecker, StG Ecker (loan from Low German?), and Gothic akran, and the idea that it comes from OE ac (ModE oak) and corn is a 15th/16th century folk etymology.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2025 10:35 am**

Huh, thank you! The more you know

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2025 12:10 pm**

If it were such a compound you'd expect, if it were cognate, StG Eichkorn (which is a surname and does not refer to anything like acorns).

Zompist Bboard Again

English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions

Re: English questions