Zompist Bboard Again

One feature I have heard no one mention, ever, but which from hearing many people here speak seems quite common is (as I have mentioned before) palatalization of /t/ before stressed /w uː ʊ ɜr/. My own speech actually seems to be less than normal in comparison in that it generally has less palatalization than many in these cases (even though I have marked palatalization/affrication of unstressed /tər/).

Anyone else run into features like this?

I used to say "your churn!" when i was a kid, which I may have subconsciously picked up from someone else. Im guessing it's because the cluster /tr/ is phonetically /tšr/, so it can spread to the syllabic /r/ as well. But I only said it for that one word as far as I know, and not for any of those other vowels either.

I specifically remember commercials about 15 years ago for a local lawyer where the lawyer said the up-front cost was only [tʃʰwʌ̃ːni tʃʰwʌ̃ːni tʃʰwʌ̃ːni] dollars, with very obvious affrication, and it really stuck out to me.

Palatalisation bevore /w/ and /u/ is also known from other languages, e.g. the development of PIE */twV/, */tu/ to Ancient Greek /sV/, /su/.

Also note the affrication of Japanese /t/ to [ts] before /u/. I also find it difficult to pronounce non-palatalised [t d s z] before [y ʏ].

I don't tend to affricate [t d] before [w], but sometimes do in unstressed syllables before a syllabic /r/ ("tarantula" sounds a bit like "ch'ranch'la", approximately [tʃʰɹ'ɹæ̃(n)tʃ(ʰ).ɫə], when I speak quickly, though the second palatalisation is yod-coalescence, and the the a careful pronunciation of the word is closer to [tʰə'ɹæ̃(n)tʃ(ʰ).jʊ.ɫə], with only the second "t" affricated); fast "twenty" is usually [tʰwɛn.ni~tʰwɛn.nɪ] (twenny) or [tʰwʌn.ni~tʰwʌn.nɪ] (twunny), very "correctly" [tʰwɛn.tʰi~tʰwɛn.tʰɪ]).I don't affricate the initial cluster [tr] as heavily as some people do, but I think there is a weakly-articulated [s~ʃ] in words like tree and true.

As I mentioned how my daughter pronounces it in a different thread, tarantula in the dialect here very frequently has palatalization/affrication of the initial /t/ even though syllabic /r/ here is a pharyngealized uvular approximant and in the case that I specifically remembered my daughter pronouncing it, she didn't use a syllabic /r/ at all but rather separated the /t/ from the /r/ with a clear schwa.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 10:28 am Also note the affrication of Japanese /t/ to [ts] before /u/. I also find it difficult to pronounce non-palatalised [t d s z] before [y ʏ].

It is very common here to pronounce two with affrication and or palatalization. I myself commonly pronounce it as [tsʲʰʉ(ː)]

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 10:28 am I also find it difficult to pronounce non-palatalised [t d s z] before [y ʏ].

As do Québécois— [t d] affricate before [y i]. E.g. tu dis [tsy dzi]

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 4:21 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 10:28 am I also find it difficult to pronounce non-palatalised [t d s z] before [y ʏ].

As do Québécois— [t d] affricate before [y i]. E.g. tu dis [tsy dzi]

Interestingly enough, I don't palatalize /t/ or other coronals before /i/.

It's specifically front-rounded vowels that make me want to affricate. I also don't palatalise /t d s/ very strongly when speaking English — I think the aspiration of /t/ at least in part provides a sort of "cushion" against it; I do, however, tend to palatalise /k g/ to something like [cç ɟʝ].

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 5:44 pm It's specifically front-rounded vowels that make me want to affricate. I also don't palatalise /t d s/ very strongly when speaking English — I think the aspiration of /t/ at least in part provides a sort of "cushion" against it; I do, however, tend to palatalise /k g/ to something like [cç ɟʝ].

I do have some palatalization of /k g/ before /j/ and weak palatalization of /k g/ before /i/ or /ir/, but without affrication. /h/ palatalizes to [ç] before /j i ir/ here, and there is one ad on the radio that sticks out to me that the speaker actually hardens palatalized /h/ to [c].

I have unconditional affrication of /t/: when not flapped to [ɾ], my /t/ is almost always [tˢ], or sometimes even just [s].

I'm trying out pronouncing two without affrication or palatalization at all, and it sound and feels really weird. I don't normally perceive the /t/ as affricated, it's not normally as strongly affricated as [tʃʰ], as in chore, or as [tɕʰ], as in chew. But it's definitely got a fricative release now that I am really paying attention to it.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:26 pm I have unconditional affrication of /t/: when not flapped to [ɾ], my /t/ is almost always [tˢ], or sometimes even just [s].

Sounds like the 'second' Germanic consonant shift, which seems to be in progress in much of Germanic - even Danish can exhibit it.

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 9:15 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:26 pm I have unconditional affrication of /t/: when not flapped to [ɾ], my /t/ is almost always [tˢ], or sometimes even just [s].

Sounds like the 'second' Germanic consonant shift, which seems to be in progress in much of Germanic - even Danish can exhibit it.

This would be unlikely, given that this seems to be a specifically Southern Hemisphere English feature. (According to Wikipedia South African English has syllable-final /t/-affrication; Australian English has frication of /t/ almost to [ʃ]. I can hear both phenomena in my speech.)

Reading of the affrication of /t/ unconditionally did make me think of Danish, too.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 9:56 pm Reading of the affrication of /t/ unconditionally did make me think of Danish, too.

Same here. That is a feature I associate with Danish in particular.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 9:38 pmAustralian English has frication of /t/ almost to [ʃ].

I've never heard this. It's weird because in my experience most Australians voice /t/ in these contexts, while the fricative realization is voiceless.

vlad wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:53 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 9:38 pmAustralian English has frication of /t/ almost to [ʃ].

I've never heard this. It's weird because in my experience most Australians voice /t/ in these contexts, while the fricative realization is voiceless.

For me, the realisation of /t/ varies between flapped [ɾ], unreleased [t̚], affricated [tˢ~ts~ᵗs] and fricated [s̻], but I’m really unsure about the conditioning environment. To some extent they’re in free variation, though I think it’s also dependent on surrounding vowel height and the presence or absence of consonants: butter [ˈbɐɾɐ ~ ˈbɐtˢɐ ~ ˈbɐs̻ɐ], bat [ˈbæts], banter [ˈbæntˢɐ], better [ˈbes̻ɐ ~ ˈbeɾɐ], bitter [ˈbɪs̻ɐ ~ ˈbɪᵗs̪ɐ], dotpoint [ˈdɔt̚pʰo̞intˢ].

(As an aside, I’m really unsure about the exact value of [s̻]. I’ve transcribed it as laminal, but I have a feeling the difference is in sibilance: it’s almost like [θ̠], though I still perceive some sibilance.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 9:38 pm Australian English has frication of /t/ almost to [ʃ]. I can hear both phenomena in my speech.)

Can you post audio of this? I can't quite imagine this as belonging to a plausible variety of English