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

Fri Aug 15 14:48:44 UTC 2008

FWIW, Benjamin, it sounds to me that Roel "cheats." That is, he merely
nasalizes the /i/ instead of fully articulating the /n/. Nevertheless,
I do believe that it's possible to pronounce /ns/ as [ns]. Indeed, I
believe (my experience has been that you have to listen to yourself on
tape, if you want to hear what your speech *really* sounds like) that
*I* can disambiguate "prince" and "prints" by pronouncing them
differently: [prIns] vs. [prInts]. But why? The two words always occur
in completely different contexts. It would be like teaching oneself to
distinguish "leach" from "leech" by pronouncing the former as [liItS]
or some such. Most people wouldn't notice and most of those who did
notice wouldn't care.

-Wilson

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Benjamin Barrett <gogaku at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Benjamin Barrett <gogaku at IX.NETCOM.COM>
> Subject:      NS > NTS (was: Re: "war" [wor])
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>

--
All say, "How hard it is that we have to die"---a strange complaint to
come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
-----
-Mark Twain

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