Zompist Bboard Again

And AACR2/RDA rules (the ones librarians use) are that you only capitalise proper nouns and adjectives.

Does anyone else have considerable central versus back allophony of /uː ʊ oʊ/ in English? For me each of these can be any of [ʉ ʉu u], [ʉ̞ ʉ̞ʊ ʊ], or [ɵ̞ ɵ̞o̞ o̞] respectively, with the first being if between two coronals or following a coronal and word-final, the second being if following a coronal and preceding a non-coronal, and the third being if following a non-coronal or if initial. Examples include for each of these sets are toot, tube, and kook for the /uː/, soot, took, and cook for the /ʊ/, and tote, soak, and coke for /oʊ/.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 7:09 pm Does anyone else have considerable central versus back allophony of /uː ʊ oʊ/ in English? For me each of these can be any of [ʉ ʉu u], [ʉ̞ ʉ̞ʊ ʊ], or [ɵ̞ ɵ̞o̞ o̞] respectively, with the first being if between two coronals or following a coronal and word-final, the second being if following a coronal and preceding a non-coronal, and the third being if following a non-coronal or if initial Examples include for each of these sets are toot, tube, and kook for the /uː/, soot, took, and cook for the /ʊ/, and tote, soak, and coke for /oʊ/.

what I'm used to is the back allophone only being conditioned by following /l/ - coke [kʰəwˀk] vs. coal [k̠ʰoʶlʶ], foot [fʊˀt] vs. full [fl̩ʶ], kook [kʰɵʉ̯ˀk] vs. cool [k̠ʰuʶlʶ]. but there might be more detailed variation in /uw/ that's too subtle or too optional for me to notice

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 9:51 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 7:09 pm Does anyone else have considerable central versus back allophony of /uː ʊ oʊ/ in English? For me each of these can be any of [ʉ ʉu u], [ʉ̞ ʉ̞ʊ ʊ], or [ɵ̞ ɵ̞o̞ o̞] respectively, with the first being if between two coronals or following a coronal and word-final, the second being if following a coronal and preceding a non-coronal, and the third being if following a non-coronal or if initial Examples include for each of these sets are toot, tube, and kook for the /uː/, soot, took, and cook for the /ʊ/, and tote, soak, and coke for /oʊ/.

what I'm used to is the back allophone only being conditioned by following /l/ - coke [kʰəwˀk] vs. coal [k̠ʰoʶlʶ], foot [fʊˀt] vs. full [fl̩ʶ], kook [kʰɵʉ̯ˀk] vs. cool [k̠ʰuʶlʶ]. but there might be more detailed variation in /uw/ that's too subtle or too optional for me to notice

For me, /uːl ʊl oʊl/ are realized as [uʊ ʊ̞ o̞ʊ] even when preceded by coronals, which would normally impart centralization onto them. For instance, I have coke [kʰo̞ʔk] versus coal [kʰo̞(ː)ʊ], foot [fʊʔ] versus full [fʊ̞(ː)], and kook [kʰuʔk] versus cool [kʰu(ː)ʊ].

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 7:09 pm Does anyone else have considerable central versus back allophony of /uː ʊ oʊ/ in English? For me each of these can be any of [ʉ ʉu u], [ʉ̞ ʉ̞ʊ ʊ], or [ɵ̞ ɵ̞o̞ o̞] respectively, with the first being if between two coronals or following a coronal and word-final, the second being if following a coronal and preceding a non-coronal, and the third being if following a non-coronal or if initial. Examples include for each of these sets are toot, tube, and kook for the /uː/, soot, took, and cook for the /ʊ/, and tote, soak, and coke for /oʊ/.

I think fronting of /uː/ after coronals is widespread in American English. As a BrE speaker, I have a contrast between /uː/ and /juː/ here, though in practice my accent tends towards yod coalescence, and /uː/ is strongly fronted after /j/.

There's also the tendency for fronting to be blocked by a following /l/. I once looked at some formants of my own pronunciations, and found that actually /uː/ and /oʊ/ in that position were diphthongs which started in a similar position to the more typical allophones but which then glided strongly backwards. (My usual GOAT is somewhat fronted, but not unrounded nor as strongly dipthongised as in RP; I think [öː] is a reasonable transcription.)

This must have been discussed here before, but a question for rhotic speakers (esp. NAmE I guess?): do you pronounce what's commonly transcribed as /ɚ/ /ɝ/ as a syllabic consonant?

A follow-up question: if that's possible, does that produce vowelless sentences for English (at least in your variety)?

Seirios wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 11:54 pm This must have been discussed here before, but a question for rhotic speakers (esp. NAmE I guess?): do you pronounce what's commonly transcribed as /ɚ/ /ɝ/ as a syllabic consonant?

A follow-up question: if that's possible, does that produce vowelless sentences for English (at least in your variety)?

I have this, but I don't understand the question... whether it's a vowel or a consonant strikes me as a theoretical issue, and one of the first things I learned in phonetics is that it's a continuum, not a binary. Catford, for instance, describes /ɚ/ as a rhotacized vowel.

I'm not sure what you're after, but you can certainly come up with sentences with only /ɚ/. "Bird cursed words" etc.

Seirios wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 11:54 pmA follow-up question: if that's possible, does that produce vowelless sentences for English (at least in your variety)?

Mm hmm.

Seirios wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 11:54 pm This must have been discussed here before, but a question for rhotic speakers (esp. NAmE I guess?): do you pronounce what's commonly transcribed as /ɚ/ /ɝ/ as a syllabic consonant?

Yes, I pronounce it as [ʁ̩ˤ], identical in realization to my [ʁˤ] for coda /r/.

Seirios wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 11:54 pm A follow-up question: if that's possible, does that produce vowelless sentences for English (at least in your variety)?

Yes.

Seirios wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 11:54 pm This must have been discussed here before, but a question for rhotic speakers (esp. NAmE I guess?): do you pronounce what's commonly transcribed as /ɚ/ /ɝ/ as a syllabic consonant?

That's a theoretical question, but I think of it as just a vowel. Does the existence of semivowels mean that high vowels are syllabic consonants?

Does anyone else use a tag or in English? Tag oder in German is well-known, but I have not seen anything commenting on tag or in English.

(Now that I take a second look, the Wiki does refer to tag or in English.)

I use it to soften offers — Would you like help finding a book, or...?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 3:37 pm Does anyone else use a tag or in English? Tag oder in German is well-known, but I have not seen anything commenting on tag or in English.

(Now that I take a second look, the Wiki does refer to tag or in English.)

I've only heard it by non-native speakers in Germany (and occasionally by native speakers in Germany whose English has been substantially influenced by non-native forms). What Rounin Ryuuji is saying is common, but it's a bit of a different phenomenon because it is not turning a statement into a question. It can be added to a question or a statement and doesn't change the sentence type. It's just basically indicating there are other options.

Does anyone else here pronounce initial /kw ɡw/ in English as [kʷʰ ɡʷ~kʷ], i.e. not as two distinct segments but as a single labialized consonant?

I'm pretty sure my /kw/ is phonetically [kʷʰ] — it's articulated very quickly, like two sounds superposed on top of each-other, or with only a very brief offglide — but as for /gw/, I think it's, weirdly enough, [gw]; I feel like I take noticeably longer to articulate the second one (I also partially-devoice initial voiceless consonants, but not fully, as some speakers do, so it isn't really truly [kw]), and it feels like the [w] is more fully realised than in /kw/.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:58 pm I'm pretty sure my /kw/ is phonetically [kʷʰ] — it's articulated very quickly, like two sounds superposed on top of each-other, or with only a very brief offglide — but as for /gw/, I think it's, weirdly enough, [gw]; I feel like I take noticeably longer to articulate the second one (I also partially-devoice initial voiceless consonants, but not fully, as some speakers do, so it isn't really truly [kw]), and it feels like the [w] is more fully realised than in /kw/.

What I notice is that I round my lips before I even pronounce the stop, indicating that the stop itself is labialized; there is no transition from an unlabialized stop to a labialized glide for me in either case.

I think I do the lip-rounding in /kw/, but not with /gw/, which definitely has a glide in there; the only words I can think of with /gw/ off the top of my head are names like Guinivere, McGuire, and Gwaltney, the first two aren't native, and I'm not sure the etymology of the last one; it doesn't seem at all common in English words. Even in things like bigwig (which syllabifies /bɪg.wɪg/ to me), as does segué (/sɛg.wei/). I feel like I ought to be missing something, but Google searches only turn up things like gweilo, which is also a recent borrowing. My guess is that there are next-to no native /gw/ words, so a labialised-g didn't develop (in the variety of English I speak, at least, which seems to be at least somewhat conservative areally), while on the other hand, items of both native and borrowed vocabulary with /kw/ — quick, queer, quill, quilt, quest, question — are extremely common.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 8:51 pm Does anyone else here pronounce initial /kw ɡw/ in English as [kʷʰ ɡʷ~kʷ], i.e. not as two distinct segments but as a single labialized consonant?

Yeah, I definitely labialise both. My lips round for the stop, but I wonder if it would be more accurate to transcribe my pronunciation as [kʷʰw ɡʷw]

I found this construction interesting:

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 3:59 am He's an RL friend.

Personally, I would say ‘a RL friend’, with the other article. Which option does everyone else prefer?

I never adopted forms like that, so I would still say (and write), "a real-life friend".