pron. of just

Sat Feb 28 13:58:45 UTC 2009

This is hopeless.

Herb

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Tom Zurinskas <truespel at hotmail.com> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Tom Zurinskas <truespel at HOTMAIL.COM>
> 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
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 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)É™r, ËˆhÉ™r\ Â I hear the ~er phoneme
>>>>> but = \ËˆbÉ™t\ Â Â Â I hear the ~u phoneme
>>>>> local = \ËˆlÅ -kÉ™l\ Â I hear the ~oo phoneme
>>>>> flaccid Â = \Ëˆfla-sÉ™d also Ëˆflak-sÉ™d\ Â I hear the ~i phoneme
>>>>> forehead = Â \ËˆfÃ¤r-É™d, ËˆfoÌ‡r-; ËˆfoÌ‡r-ËŒhed also -ËŒed\ Â 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
>

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