pron. of just

[Tom Zurinskas]

Comments below


Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL5+
see truespel.com


> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender: American Dialect Society
> Poster: Herb Stahlke
> Subject: Re: pron. of just
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I believe I referred specifically to the suffix -ing.

I think it was unstressed "ing".  But suffix "ing" can have "i" go both ways as long e with velar (back) N (and g pronounced) or short i with alveolar (front) n (with g dropped).

> The correct
> second singular subject pronoun, btw, is "thou." "Thee" is for
> objects.

Lost me.

> Whether reduced and unstressed overlap depends on how you treat
> English stress and vowel quality. If you opt for a multi-level stress
> system, two or three levels, then probably unstressed vowels will be
> reduced. If you opt for only one level of stress, then unstressed
> syllables may be reduced or have full vowels. Ladefoged (A Course in
> Phonetics) chooses the latter.

"Full vowels?"  What's that?  A vowel sound is a vowel sound.  Does it mean stressed?

> If you think that schwa and barred-i are two different phonemes in
> contexts I described below, then you don't know what a phoneme is.
> Phonemes are by definition not predictable. Their allophones by
> definition are.

If you're right I certainly don't know what a phoneme is.  I think that phonemes are sound units that have a range of allophones.  What's not predictable about that.

> Syllabic consonants are a fact of many languages, including English.
> They may not fit into your scheme, but that's a problem for your
> scheme, not a demonstration that syllabic consonants are a bad idea.
> That's like saying that rain is a bad idea.

It's only a fact if you define it as such.  Take the word "local".  Do you want to say the phonetic spelling is ~loekl.  Then what if I need to say "localizer" I don't want to say ~loekliezer.  I want to say ~loekooliezer.  But your syllabic l foespel does not allow it.  Not good.

> The vowels in "put" and "pull" are formed in part by raising the back
> of the tongue towards the soft palate, technically called the velum.
> This is not velarization.

I agree.  It was you that said it was.  See below where final l is velarized.  You said it was "a fact".  So you're saying I was right.  Right?  But the way you put it here makes it look like I said it was velar and you're correcting me, when it was I correcting you.

> Velarization is the combination of this
> raising of the back of the tongue with a primary articulation like the
> alveolar lateral /l/. Velarization, like palatalization and
> labialization, is a secondary articulation.

The tongue contacting the velar region shuts off the airflow so it goes nasal.  No way.

> Using a schwa-r representation for "her" or "burr" is a convention,
> not a phonetically precise representation. I don't object to the
> convention itself. It's particularly useful when dealing with r-drop
> dialects that also have intrusive /r/, as in "idear is." It's useful
> in such cases or when dealing with comparative dialectology. It's not
> useful if you're trying to describe accurately the sounds of a
> particular dialect. "Her" contains two sounds, not three.

If the "r" is dropped in "her" then you have a new sound such as in UK.  It's not exactly "huh".  In truespel it's foespeld ~eu.  So technically "her" in truespel should be ~heur, but ~er works well enough.

> Forehead and horrid rhyme in some dialects, like British RP. OED
> rhymes them, and MW and AHD both give rhyming pronunciations as
> alternate pronunciations.

In UK for "for" if the r is dropped it comes aot ~fau so I don't understand ~faa,
>
> Herb
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Tom Zurinskas wrote:
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
>> Sender: American Dialect Society
>> Poster: Tom Zurinskas
>> Subject: Re: pron. of just
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> comments below.
>>
>> Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL5+
>> see truespel.com
>>
>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
>>> Sender: American Dialect Society
>>> Poster: Herb Stahlke
>>> Subject: Re: pron. of just
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Tom,
>>>
>>> The first vowel of 'linguistic" and the third in "dirigible" are not
>>> the same.
>>
>> I agree but it was thee who said they were the same sound.
>>
>>> That of "linguistic," while not the /i/ that I think you
>>> suggest, is not a reduced vowel either. The third vowel of
>>> "dirigible" is reduced.
>>
>> Reduced means unstressed I assume.
>>
>>> Reduced vowels in English typically become
>>> schwa, but surrounding consonants can modify that, as the
>>> palato-alveolar africate /dZ/ does in "just" (adv.) and "dirigible,"
>>> raising the schwa to barred-i. The distinction between the two sounds
>>> is real, but it is allophonic here.
>>
>> Nope. Two different phonemes.
>>
>>> Your use of "oo" before the final /l/ of "dirigible" also reflects a
>>> faulty assumption on your part, that there is in fact a vowel in that
>>> syllable. Final unstressed /l/ in English is typically syllabic, that
>>> is, it is the vowel and final consonant of the syllable combined.
>>> There is no oo or schwa or any other vowel before it.
>>
>> Syllabic "l" is not a good concept. A syllable needs a vowel. Also if you add a suffix you might need that vowel. For instand cannibalize. It's not pronounced cannablize. But a "syllabic l" would wipe out the vowel that is necessary there. Syllabic l is bad concept that is worthless.
>>
>>> Your sense that
>>> the vowel oo occurs there probably arises from the fact that
>>> syllable-final /l/ is velarized, that is, the back of the tongue is
>>> raised in the same gesture that produces the vowel of "put," which you
>>> write as oo. What you're doing is interpreting an allophonic feature
>>> of final /l/ as a vowel, a misunderstanding of what's going on
>>> phonetically.
>>
>> I don't think the vowel in "put" or "pull" is velarized at all.
>>
>>> I understand that you've trained yourself to listen closely to sounds.
>>> The problem is that you've trained yourself and so have not benefited
>>> from someone who really is expert in hearing, distinguishing, and
>>> teaching the sounds of English and other languages. You would benefit
>>> from a course in phonetics, as well as an intro to linguistics.
>>
>> I've seen quite a bit of it on the internet, with voice as well.
>>
>>> As to the words below, MW.com follows a common convention of using
>>> schwa in more than one way. MW makes no distinction between the two
>>> vowels of "sofa" or "abut" on the widely accepted premise that schwa
>>> is the unstressed allophone of inverted v.
>>
>> The new thing is the ability to "hear" the words spoken in the internet dictionaries. Therefore unstressed vowel phonemes can be determined rather than schwad.
>>
>>> Further, instead of using
>>> syllabic consonants in "her" and "bottle" they use a vowel before the
>>> consonant, namely, schwa.
>>
>> That's so much better than the "syllablized consonant" idea.
>>
>>> For a readership unfamiliarwith syllabic
>>> consonants, that's a reasonable solution even if it's not phonetically
>>> accurate.
>>
>> If it's not accurate why is it reasonable? Not good.
>>
>>> As to the first pronunciation of "forehead," remember the
>>> nursery rhyme
>>
>> Actually ~faared doesn't rhyme with ~horid
>>
>>> There was a little girl
>>> who had a little curl
>>> right in the middle of her forehead.
>>>
>>> When she was good
>>> she was very very good
>>>
>>> But when she was bad
>>> she was horrid.
>>>
>>> The rhyme works only for those, largely British, dialects that use the
>>> first pronunciation, rhyming with "horrid."
>>>
>>> Herb
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Tom Zurinskas wrote:
>>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
>>>> Sender: Â Â Â American Dialect Society
>>>> Poster: Â Â Â Tom Zurinskas
>>>> Subject: Â Â Â Re: pron. of just
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> These 5 words are from m-w.com. Â There is a schwa in each that the speaker pronounces as a different phoneme. Â That's at least 5 different sounds for one symbol. Â (because m-w.com uses special symbols, the schwa sign may not come out).
>>>>
>>>> her = \(h)ər, ˈhər\  I hear the ~er phoneme
>>>> but = \ˈbət\    I hear the ~u phoneme
>>>> local = \ˈlŠ-kəl\  I hear the ~oo phoneme
>>>> flaccid  = \ˈfla-səd also ˈflak-səd\  I hear the ~i phoneme
>>>> forehead =  \ˈfär-əd, ˈfȯr-; ˈfȯr-ˌhed also -ˌed\  I hear the ~e phoneme
>>>>
>>>> Note. Â I've never heard flaccid pronounced ~flaksid, nor forehead pronounced ~faared. Â Anyone else?
>>>>
>>>> Clearly schwa stands for many sounds.
>>>>
>>>> Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL5+
>>>> see truespel.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> It’s the same Hotmail®. If by “same” you mean up to 70% faster.
>> http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_AE_Same_022009
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Life without walls.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_032009

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