Zompist Bboard Again

process /prɑses/
processes /prɑsesɨz/
error /erər/ [eɚ̯.ɚ]
air /er/ [eɚ̯]
mirror /mirər/ [miɚ̯.ɚ]
mere /mir/ [miɚ̯]

we'll
will

Asking because I'm just watching a YouTube video with generated subtitles, that consistently transcribes "will" for "we'll" (and it does sound like "will" to me, but with my bad hearing, that might just be because of the "will" transcription, I can't really perceive the difference very well, if at all).


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:09 amwe'll
will

I would have said these were homophones for me but I think the vowel is potentially more centralised in we'll, maybe even all the way to [ɘ]. (I think the range of acceptable realisations is fairly broad in this case.)

Clear "we'll" is /wi:l/, in theory homophonous with 'wheel', but more prone to pre-lateral dipthongisation.

However, in many cases in speech (particularly after an actual or implied 'whether' or 'that' or the like) this is abbreviated to /w@l/. The actually realisation of /@/ varies. It comes from /i:/, and phonemic schwa is often phonetically close to /I/ when it comes from /i:/ (there are at least three schwas, i-coloured, u-coloured and a-coloured). On the other hand, phonemic schwa is often u-coloured when adjacent to /w/, and backed before coda /l/. So destressed "we'll" can be anywhere in a triangle of pure /w@l/, through to nearly homophonous with either 'will' or 'wool'. Somewhere between fully clear and destressed, it also goes through a partially laxed, slightly diphthongised, semi-destressed form something like "weerl" (i.e. (shortened) [wI:@l]).


In general, unstressed vowels in English can get complicated...

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:31 amHowever, in many cases in speech (particularly after an actual or implied 'whether' or 'that' or the like) this is abbreviated to /w@l/. The actually realisation of /@/ varies. It comes from /i:/, and phonemic schwa is often phonetically close to /I/ when it comes from /i:/ (there are at least three schwas, i-coloured, u-coloured and a-coloured). On the other hand, phonemic schwa is often u-coloured when adjacent to /w/, and backed before coda /l/. So destressed "we'll" can be anywhere in a triangle of pure /w@l/, through to nearly homophonous with either 'will' or 'wool'. Somewhere between fully clear and destressed, it also goes through a partially laxed, slightly diphthongised, semi-destressed form something like "weerl" (i.e. (shortened) [wI:@l]).

I think I may even have [wɫ̩] in some contexts.

Cool, thanks for the replies so far.


JAL

I have two distinct pronunciations for we'll and will when stressed, namely [wi(ː)ɯ̯] and [wɘ(ː)ɯ̯] respectively, and a merged unstressed pronunciation [wʊː(ː)].

Will is always [wɪl] for me. We'll is [wi.l̩] when stressed and [wil] when unstressed.

In short: English vowels before /l/ are weird. Function words are often unstressed, and unstressed English vowels are weird. So we'll is doubly weird.

Ryusenshi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:56 amIn short: English vowels before /l/ are weird. Function words are often unstressed, and unstressed English vowels are weird. So we'll is doubly weird.

I would say triply because of the weirdness around contractions as well.

I think the pronunciation of contractions like "we'll" was discussed at some point on the previous board, so you might search for it there to get more info.

For me:

I'll he'll she'll we'll you'll they'll there'll you're we're they're
normally (when unstressed): [ɑɫ~ɫ̩] [hɪɫ~hɫ̩] [ʃɪɫ~ʃɫ̩] [wɪɫ~wɫ̩] [jɫ̩] [ðe̞ɫ~ðɫ̩] [ðe̞ɫ~ðɫ̩] [jɹ̩] [wɹ̩] [ðe̞ɹ], maybe [ðɹ̩]?
normally (when stressed): [ɑɫ̩] [hɪɫ] [ʃɪɫ] [wɪɫ] [jɫ̩] [ðe̞ɫ] ... [jo̞ɹ~jɹ̩] [wiɹ] [ðe̞ɹ].
only with artificially careful pronunciation: [aj(.)ɫ] [hiɫ] [ʃiɫ] [wiɫ] ... [ðe̞ɹɫ̩]

For the stressed list, I'm thinking of a context like contrastive stress in a sentence like "{YOU'LL}/{YOU'RE going to} be the one(s) to do it next time." I didn't include "there'll" because I can't think of a sentence where it would be stressed.

Notes:

• Vowels like /e/, /o/, /i/ sound like they tend to have a non-syllabic schwa-like offglide before coda ɫ or ɹ, but I didn't transcribe it because I think it's an automatic assimilation to the back quality of the consonant. I can't tell exactly where the vowel ends and the consonant starts. Also, since I'm not using [ə] in the transcription of syllabic liquids, it seemed weird to use [ə̯] before non-syllabic liquids.
• To me, [ɫ̩] sounds like unstressed /ʊɫ/. I don't know why (maybe stressed /ʊɫ/can be [ɫ̩] for me—that's supposed to exist in some accents—or maybe I have some amount of vocalization of [ɫ̩] to [ʊ], or to some [ʊ]-like vowel). So all of the unstressed pronunciations I gave with [ɫ̩] could possibly be transcribed with [ʊɫ] instead.
• Since using a non-contracted version is usually possible in formal context, I can't think of many circumstances where I would use the "artificially careful pronunciations" [aj(.)ɫ] [hiɫ] [ʃiɫ] [wiɫ] for I'll he'll she'll we'll. Maybe it could occur in a formal singing context. For comparison, here are some non-contractions with pronunciations that feel similarly "over-enunciated" for me: while as [waj(.)ɫ] (vs. [wɑɫ~wɫ̩] normally), am as [e̞ə̯m] (vs. [ɛm~əm~m̩] normally), tour as [tʊɹ~tu(.)ɹ] (vs. [to̞ɹ] normally), pure as [pjʊɹ~pju(.)ɹ] (vs. [pjɹ̩] normally).
• I don't think I'd ever use [ju(.)ɫ] for you'll, even when speaking carefully. I definitely would never use something like [ðe̞j(.)ɫ] for they'll.
• "who'll" and "who're" don't seem to have compressed forms, only disyllabic forms [hu.ɫ], [hu.ɹ]

zoology
zooplankton


JAL

EDIT: added zooplankton

It's pronounced as zoo-ology

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:29 amIt's pronounced as zoo-ology

Well, this thread is not about prescriptive, but about descriptive pronunciation ;). And Wikipedia lists alternative pronunciations. I might've added "zooplankton", perhaps it's different there...


JAL

/zuˈɔlədʒi/
/ˈzo(ʊ)oʊplæŋktən/ [ˈzə.əɯ̯pleŋktn̩]

jal wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:46 am

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:29 amIt's pronounced as zoo-ology

Well, this thread is not about prescriptive, but about descriptive pronunciation . And Wikipedia lists alternative pronunciations. I might've added "zooplankton", perhaps it's different there...


JAL

OK, but it didn't even cross my mind that there could be another way to say 'zoology', so I read that as another 'non-native speaker asks about puzzling word' post.
Having seen that wiktionary says my pronunciation is "non-standard"... it still doesn't cross my mind that there could be another way to say it. I don't hang out with zoologists much, so maybe they say it "correctly", but I don't think I've ever heard anybody else say it that way ever.

"Zooplankton" is different. I used to say "zoo-plankton", but now I would say "zo-o-plankton". I guess because zooplankton is a technical word, so I'm more eager to have a 'correct' pronunciation, and of course because as it's rarely used by non-specialised the more 'natural' pronunciation doesn't have an independent vitality. Whereas the vast majority of the time you hear the word 'zoology', it's by people who aren't serious professional zoologists, and even those who are learned the word before they were, so the 'natural' pronunciation has a lot more vitality.

Wiktionary says that it should be zo-@-plankton (i.e. as though it were spelled zoaplankton), which seems ridiculous to me.

I myself have the (non-standard) pronunciations [ˌzʲʉ̯uːˈwaːɤ̯əːtʃi(ː)] and [ˌzʲʉ̯uˈpʰɰẽ(ŋ)k̚tɘ̃(ː)(n)], corresponding to /ˌzuːˈɒlədʒi/ and /ˌzuːˈpleɪŋktən/. I asked my parents what they have, and they have the non-standard /ˌzuːˈɒlədʒi/ but the standard /ˌzoʊəˈpleɪŋktən/.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:18 am
Wiktionary says that it should be zo-@-plankton (i.e. as though it were spelled zoaplankton), which seems ridiculous to me.

It's just weakening of unstressed o to @. In this kind of context, that type of vowel reduction is an option in many dialects. Does it also seem ridiculous to you to pronounce biological as bi@logical, or is zooplankton special because the "correct" pronunciation is unnatural?

I think that Sal is getting at specifically is the first vowel /əʊ/. I don't think he'd balk at /zuː.ə-/

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:55 am I think that Sal is getting at specifically is the first vowel /əʊ/. I don't think he'd balk at /zuː.ə-/

No, I've no problem with /oU/. It's the reduction and derounding of /oU/ to /@/ that seems weird to me, particularly when following a rounded vowel.

Yes, it seems weird to say 'biological' as though it were spelled 'byrelogical' (reducing the second vowel to schwa would merge the sequence with the TYRE triphthong/monophthong). But at least I could see it happening in careless speech due to spreading of unroundedness. But in the case of 'zooplankton', you've got a rounded vowel between another rounded vowel (or even [w], in practice) and a rounded (bilabial) consonant, and it seems really, really weird to me to have dissimilatory derounding there. [If anything, I'd expect that if the word WERE zoaplankton, I might accidentally turn schwa into [o]...]

[of course, destressed /oU/ isn't always /oU/, sometimes it's just something like [o]...]