LL-L "Phonology" 2005.06.06 (02) [D/E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 06.JUN.2005 (02) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.06.05 (06) [E]

Wat ik interessant vind aan de oorspronkelijke vraag (van wie was die ook
al weer?), is dat Amerikanen de Canadese <ou> niet alleen als [u:] schijnen
te horen, maar ook als [y]. Wat betekent deze [y]- is dat de Nederlandse
<uu>, Duitse <ü>, Franse <u>? Horen sommige Amerikanen <about> dan als
[@"by:t], dat zou toch wel heel opvallend zijn...

What I find interesting about the original question (by whom that was put?)
is that Americans seem to hear Canadian <ou> not only as [u:] but also as
[y]. What does this [y] mean - is that the same as Dutch <uu>, German <ü>,
French <u>? Would that mean some Americans hear <about> as [@"by:t], that
would be very striking...

Ingmar

>Ed Alexander:
>
>At 01:02 PM 06/05/05 -0700, some people wrote:
>
>>> > I have often wondered why US English speakers parrot this
>>> > Canadian shibboleth as if it is [y] or [u:]. Whenever I
>>> > hear actual Canadians pronouncing this it sounds very
>>> > much more like [o:]. Hence Canadian "about" is to me
>>> > identical to "a boat" but nowhere near "a boot" as
>>> > Americans would have us believe.
>>> >
>>> > Why do Americans hear [u:] and myself - whose native
>>> > sound range is Nottingham English / Cornish English -
>>> > [o:] for this disputed phoneme? I have raised this with
>>> > my Australian-accented wife and my Irish-accented friends
>>> > and they all hear [o:], not [u:]. So what's happening?

----------

From: Travis Bemann <tabemann at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.06.05 (06) [E]

> From: Ian Pollock <ispollock at shaw.ca>
> Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.06.05 (02) [E]
[snip]
> Another interesting phenomenon associated with Canadian raising is that
> it provides a few minimal pairs American english doesn't have, but in a
> very indirect way. For example:
> sighting vs siding
> There is no difference between the pronunciation of these two words in
> your basic American dialect, because intervocalic [t] and [d] have been
> replaced by a short trilled r, the phonetic symbol of which I forget.
> In IPA it looks like an r, but without the little hook coming out the
> top left side. I'll use capital R for it here.
> American: [sajRIN] sighting and [sajRIN] siding
> But Canadian raising makes a difference between these two words, not
> based on changing the t/d/r thing, but by raising the vowel before the
> *formerly* voiceless [t] (now R). So that:
> Canadian: [sVjRIN] sighting vs. [sajRIN] siding.

Actually, this is also present, especially in partial form, in many
northern American English dialects, such as that here in southeastern
Wisconsin.  In particular, one will often have raising of /aI/ as [@I]
before unvoiced consonants, but still use [aU] for /aU/ in such
positions, rather than raising such as [@U] (which is the "oo" as in
"aboot" that many Americans who aren't truly familiar which such speak
of).

Here, "sighting" (/"saItIN/) is generally pronounced as ["s at I.4IN],
whereas "siding" (/"saIdIN/) is generally pronounced as ["sa:I.4IN].
Note though that in this example there is not only a vowel raising
distinction but also a (non-phonemic) vowel length distinction as
well.  Also note that [4] is not a trilled "r", but rather is an
alveolar flap, corresponding to <r> (not <rr>) in Castilian, for
example.  Also note that that all the transcriptions above in this
post are in X-SAMPA, for the record.

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.06.05 (06) [E]


Ed Alexander writes:
"Here we go again."

You don't want us to be interested in Canadian English, Ed?

Go raibh maith agat,

Criostóir.

==============================END===================================
Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l")
are  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================