Zompist Bboard Again

I definitely have the STRUT/schwa merger because, with the exception of the syllabic consonants, all of those vowels are the same to me. And I would argue that syllabic consonants are not vowels, only vowel like, so their inclusion is already odd to me. That said, the latter bit is more definitional and intuitive rather than coming from any theory or the like. (A syllabic consonant isn't a vowel because it is a consonant. The ability to act as a syllable nucleus does not a vowel make. There is a bit of fog around syllabic semivowels/approximates, but every category has some fuzz.)

As far as I know in my own idiolect, the only difference between schwa and STRUT is whether they're stressed or not, and I'm pretty sure I could find some unstressed supposed STRUT vowels.

Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:07 am How did a French word for work (travail) become an English word for travel?

the Normans bringing their work home with them...to their new northern homes? (kidding)

work -> things where your exert yourself -> pre-modern travel?

I think it is from the medieval tradition of the journeymanship where a bachelor would travel from town to town to work and improve his skills.

zompist wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 3:18 pm

Zju wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 8:38 am Now I wanna hear a recording of 'onion' pronounced with a syllabic [n̩]. ([ˈʌn.jn̩]?.. [ˈʌn.n̩]??)

[ˈʌn.jn̩]. "Nation" and "onion" end in the same sound. ([n̩], I mean— the [j] is just in onion.)

I got what the transcription would be, but what does it sound like? How acoustically distinct is it from [ˈʌn.jən]? Is it really two syllables, or just [ʌnjn]? Or is it just [ʌnɲn]? How can a maximally raised nucleus coexist stablely with a semivowel onset? So many questions.

Zju wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 4:20 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 3:18 pm

Zju wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 8:38 am Now I wanna hear a recording of 'onion' pronounced with a syllabic [n̩]. ([ˈʌn.jn̩]?.. [ˈʌn.n̩]??)

[ˈʌn.jn̩]. "Nation" and "onion" end in the same sound. ([n̩], I mean— the [j] is just in onion.)

I got what the transcription would be, but what does it sound like? How acoustically distinct is it from [ˈʌn.jən]? Is it really two syllables, or just [ʌnjn]?

Two syllables. It's not [ˈʌn.jən] for the exact same reason that nation is not [neʃən]. Syllabic consonants are just not that hard to understand; rigidly dividing "vowels" and "consonants", and insisting that nation must have a [ə], is nothing but dogma. Liquids and nasals are easily prolonged and thus can simply be the "vowel" in a syllable. It's not rocket sajn̩s.

All I can suggest is, like any bit of phonetics you don't understand, to try it. Pronounce a prolonged [n̩]; I assure you, there's no vowel there. Try [j] with vowels and then syllabic consonants (your > [jr̩]), then [jn̩]. If your own speech has a vowel there, try to make it as short as possible and see if you can eliminate it. And above all be aware that your phonemic knowledge is going to make it hard to interpret your own speech: you're convinced it's /ʌn/ so your brain tells you there's a vowel there whether there is or not.

Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:07 am How did a French word for work (travail) become an English word for travel?

I know this isn't the reason, but the scientific definition of "work" requires a change in position, i.e. distance traveled. So to a scientist they are basically synonyms.

Zju, I have spent the last minute holding my finger up to my nose like a fool to confirm that the /j/ in "onion" for me is:
1) nasalized
2) not a stop
3) the onset of a second syllable

Regarding the second syllable of "onion", what seems relevant to me is that whether pronounced slowly or quickly, in isolation or in context, there's a change in articulation between the "schwa-ish" part and "n-ish" part. At some point there's closure of the oral cavity when there wasn't before.

Which, if it's really a syllabic nasal that we're all too conservative and rigid to perceive, seems like a different phenomenon from say the syllabic rhotics in "Herbert". Or, if switching languages isn't out of bounds, the syllabic nasal in Cantonese 唔 for example.

fusijui wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 10:59 pm Regarding the second syllable of "onion", what seems relevant to me is that whether pronounced slowly or quickly, in isolation or in context, there's a change in articulation between the "schwa-ish" part and "n-ish" part. At some point there's closure of the oral cavity when there wasn't before.

What "schwa-ish part"??

This seems to be getting into angels dancing on the head of a pin territory, but if it helps, when I say "onion" my tongue is on the alveolar ridge for the first n, jumps off it, then goes back there. If you want to describe that as 'closure of the oral cavity' you can; I call it "articulating a [j]."

If you want to invent a schwa before the jump, why not invent it before, too? It's the exact same tongue movements in reverse. By your logic it should be [ˈʌnəjən̩]. Oh, and don't forget the glottal stops on either side-- obviously it's [ʔʌnəjən̩ʔ]. Oh, and the tongue surely has to move forward and upward between the ʌ and the n, giving us [ʔʌɵnəjən̩ʔ].

Seems like you're going to have a more satisfying argument with the fusijui in your head, so I'll leave you to it.

fusijui wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 12:00 am Seems like you're going to have a more satisfying argument with the fusijui in your head, so I'll leave you to it.

You do realize you were being a jerk?

Er, where did that come from? No-one here seemed like a jerk to me

(In general, I think I agree with zompist more, though I understand where fusijui is coming from.)

It's likely that some idiolects insert a schwa into the sequence /jn̩/ to "repair" a weird sonority sequence. And while /jɹ̩/ is also a weird sonority sequence, it is considerably less so, since the rhotic is fairly close to a semivowel in GenAm (from what I've heard) and at the very least it's an approximant which is more sonorous than a nasal. Said epenthetic schwa would be the "schwa-ish part" fusijui is referring to; evidently zomp doesn't have it. I think I too have a (very short) schwa in there; /anjn̩/ sounds forced.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 5:23 pm

Zju wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 4:20 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 3:18 pm

[ˈʌn.jn̩]. "Nation" and "onion" end in the same sound. ([n̩], I mean— the [j] is just in onion.)

I got what the transcription would be, but what does it sound like? How acoustically distinct is it from [ˈʌn.jən]? Is it really two syllables, or just [ʌnjn]?

Two syllables. It's not [ˈʌn.jən] for the exact same reason that nation is not [neʃən]. Syllabic consonants are just not that hard to understand; rigidly dividing "vowels" and "consonants", and insisting that nation must have a [ə], is nothing but dogma. Liquids and nasals are easily prolonged and thus can simply be the "vowel" in a syllable. It's not rocket sajn̩s.

All I can suggest is, like any bit of phonetics you don't understand, to try it. Pronounce a prolonged [n̩]; I assure you, there's no vowel there. Try [j] with vowels and then syllabic consonants (your > [jr̩]), then [jn̩]. If your own speech has a vowel there, try to make it as short as possible and see if you can eliminate it. And above all be aware that your phonemic knowledge is going to make it hard to interpret your own speech: you're convinced it's /ʌn/ so your brain tells you there's a vowel there whether there is or not.

I grasp the concept of [n̩] - but how do you articulate [jn̩] without it being realised as say [j^ən̩] or [j^ɪn̩]? If there's no adjacent vowel, is [j] really a [j] anymore?

Zju, I have spent the last minute [...]

Insufficient data - spend two more minutes and report on that.

Zju wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 1:46 am I grasp the concept of [n̩] - but how do you articulate [jn̩] without it being realised as say [j^ən̩] or [j^ɪn̩]? If there's no adjacent vowel, is [j] really a [j] anymore?

At the phonetic level, [j] and [ĭ] are really two different notations for the same things. It’s trivial to articulate [jn] — it’s just [ĭn].

It’s only at the phonemic level that [jn̩] becomes weird. As Darren notes, many idiolects (including my own) ‘repair’ it by adding a schwa. But then it’s no longer [jn] any more, but [jən]. It’s certainly not a matter of phonetics, because there’s plenty other words containing a [jn] subsequence.

Do you mean there plenty other [jn̩]s specifically, or just plenty coda [jn]s?

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 1:50 am

Zju wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 1:46 am I grasp the concept of [n̩] - but how do you articulate [jn̩] without it being realised as say [j^ən̩] or [j^ɪn̩]? If there's no adjacent vowel, is [j] really a [j] anymore?

At the phonetic level, [j] and [ĭ] are really two different notations for the same things. It’s trivial to articulate [jn] — it’s just [ĭn].

Fair enough-- Catford calls [j] an ultrashort vowel. But then, why isn't [in] a big problem? Why isn't that [iən]?

It seems to me that people want to rescue their theories, without even hearing counter-evidence, by inserting vowels that aren't there. And then get snotty about how their analysis cannot possibly be wrong.

Or if you like, they are there at a sub-phonetic level: if you go one microsecond at a time, yes, the tongue moves from one position to another! The sounds change continuously! Amazing! So do you transcrbe [ja] as a sequence of all the vowels along the way, [jeəa]? This is occasionally useful... it's how "glimpse" got a p in it, from Middle English glimse. It's hard to move from m to s without a p in between, and for some reason that got noticed and added to the spelling.

But a) we normally don't do this; b) it would be annoying to do so; and c) if we did do it, we can't half-ass it to rescue a bad theory. There's an n before and after the j in that word! So if you insist on [jən] you should also write [nəj].

As Darren notes, many idiolects (including my own) ‘repair’ it by adding a schwa. But then it’s no longer [jn] any more, but [jən].

It shouldn't be necessary, but it seems to be: I am talking about my own idiolect, not Darren's or yours.

Hey zompist, sorry for keeping nagging you, but which one of these is close enough to your idiolect? Maybe e.g. the one by ausg? And is it just me, or does ynarakit pronounce onion as [ɐnjɛ]?

zompist wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 2:57 amSo if you insist on [jən] you should also write [nəj].

I don't see how this logically follows. I (and presumably fuisiiuiju and bradrn) have a schwa (of non-insignificant duration) in [jən], and no schwa in [nj]. For one thing the [nj] isn't a syllable, it's a hetero- (or maybe ambi-) syllabic cluster, which doesn't have a nucleus in it, and hence doesn't show any tendency to making this a sonority peak.