NS > NTS (was: Re: "war" [wor])

[Benjamin Barrett]

That reminds me: in the not-too-distance past, TZ argued that there is
no "t" sound in words like "since" and "prince."

My first phonetics professor held that there is a prestige dialect
that maintains the "ns" pronunciation, thus differentiating "prince"
from "prints" (a pursuit that TZ should be greatly interested in). I
recently found a great example, pronounced by the Netherlander pop
singer Roel van Velzen in "When Summer Ends." The song video can be
seen (and heard) at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWkBMbhAYPM. It
starts right off with his t-less pronunciation of "since".

Is this a feature of Dutch, or is it something he more likely learned
in school? BB

On Aug 14, 2008, at 11:06 PM, Benjamin Barrett wrote:

> His point seems merely to be that the term is a misnomer because it
> does not adequately describe what it does.
>
> There seems to be nothing wrong with the term "minimally different
> phonetic pair" except that it is not the jargon used in actual
> practice. His comment seems to be aimed at stirring up trouble. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
>  for a description of such behavior. BB
>
> On Aug 14, 2008, at 10:59 PM, LanDi Liu wrote:
>
>> To be a little more specific to the neophyte (TZ), "minimal pair"
>> is a
>> technical term that describes two words (a "pair") that have a very
>> small pronunciation difference; for ex. "shit" and "sheet".  Minimal
>> pairs are heavily used in ESL teaching to help learners distinguish
>> between words that sound similar to non native speakers: "Your sheet
>> is on my bed" vs "Your shit is on my bed".
>>
>> "Pair" and "dare" are not minimal pairs because the difference ([p]
>> vs
>> [d]) involve different places of articulation, so the difference is
>> not "minimal".
>>
>> "Shit" and "sheet" are minimal pairs because both vowels are high
>> front vowels, with the second higher and fronter than the first.
>>
>> Randy
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Gordon, Matthew J.
>> <GordonMJ at missouri.edu> wrote:
>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>> -----------------------
>>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>> Poster:       "Gordon, Matthew J." <GordonMJ at MISSOURI.EDU>
>>> Subject:      Re: "war" [wor]
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Minimal pair is exactly what Charlie is describing since he
>>> maintains =
>>> the historical distinction between the vowels of 'for' and 'four'.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: American Dialect Society on behalf of Tom Zurinskas
>>> Sent: Thu 8/14/2008 9:32 PM
>>> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>>> Subject:      Re: "war" [wor]
>>> =20
>>> Minimal pair is actually a misnomer.  It should be minimally
>>> different =
>>> phonetic pair.  It's the case where one sound is different, such
>>> as pair =
>>> and dare.
>>>
On Aug 14, 2008, at 11:06 PM, Benjamin Barrett wrote:

> His point seems merely to be that the term is a misnomer because it
> does not adequately describe what it does.
>
> There seems to be nothing wrong with the term "minimally different
> phonetic pair" except that it is not the jargon used in actual
> practice. His comment seems to be aimed at stirring up trouble. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
>  for a description of such behavior. BB
>
> On Aug 14, 2008, at 10:59 PM, LanDi Liu wrote:
>
>> To be a little more specific to the neophyte (TZ), "minimal pair"
>> is a
>> technical term that describes two words (a "pair") that have a very
>> small pronunciation difference; for ex. "shit" and "sheet".  Minimal
>> pairs are heavily used in ESL teaching to help learners distinguish
>> between words that sound similar to non native speakers: "Your sheet
>> is on my bed" vs "Your shit is on my bed".
>>
>> "Pair" and "dare" are not minimal pairs because the difference ([p]
>> vs
>> [d]) involve different places of articulation, so the difference is
>> not "minimal".
>>
>> "Shit" and "sheet" are minimal pairs because both vowels are high
>> front vowels, with the second higher and fronter than the first.
>>
>> Randy
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Gordon, Matthew J.
>> <GordonMJ at missouri.edu> wrote:
>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>> -----------------------
>>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>> Poster:       "Gordon, Matthew J." <GordonMJ at MISSOURI.EDU>
>>> Subject:      Re: "war" [wor]
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Minimal pair is exactly what Charlie is describing since he
>>> maintains =
>>> the historical distinction between the vowels of 'for' and 'four'.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: American Dialect Society on behalf of Tom Zurinskas
>>> Sent: Thu 8/14/2008 9:32 PM
>>> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>>> Subject:      Re: "war" [wor]
>>> =20
>>> Minimal pair is actually a misnomer.  It should be minimally
>>> different =
>>> phonetic pair.  It's the case where one sound is different, such
>>> as pair =
>>> and dare.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL5+
>>> See truespel.com - and the 4 truespel books plus "Occasional
>>> Poems" at =
>>> authorhouse.com.
>>>
>>>> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:51:32 -0400
>>>> From: cdoyle at UGA.EDU
>>>> Subject: Re: "war" [wor]
>>>> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header =
>>> -----------------------
>>>> Sender: American Dialect Society
>>>> Poster: Charles Doyle
>>>> Subject: Re: "war" [wor]
>>>> =
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
>>> ------
>>>>
>>>> Yes; "for"/"four" are a minimal pair!
>>>>
>>>> --Charlie
>>>> _____________________________________________________________
>>>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org