zompist bboard

My native language is Faroese, but since there's no standard language I'll just list those things that are special to my area:

ó: I pronounce it as [9u], while in other areas, it's [Ou]
ei: I: [Oi] other places [ai]

The southern dialects tend to merge unstressed -i and -u into an e-like sound, but my dialect still has these two separate as an e-like and an o-like sound.

I took a couple dialect quizzes online out of curiosity, so far all of them say I have a "western" American accent. That's pretty weird considering I'm from a southern state, I do however live near a military base (Ft. Bragg). Could the the fact that I live with constant contact with military personnel effect my idiolect/dialect enough to make my speech sound western?

Another thing - the use of funny trailing pronouns in subordinate clauses:

The man that I talked to him, remember?

The house they found the body under it, right?

The car that its mirror got knocked off.

YngNghymru wrote:Another thing - the use of funny trailing pronouns in subordinate clauses:

The man that I talked to him, remember?

The house they found the body under it, right?

The car that its mirror got knocked off.

Me, too. I noticed today that I also do weird things with adjectivization of subordinate clauses:

"It's the difficulter to see one."

"The taking leaflets around woman's here again!"

...and even, rarely, with nouns:

"Gosh, he's even more phonier than you!" (for 'has even more telephones')

I really try hard not to do the last one in speech, because it's just plain weird, but sometimes it just slips out...

One thing I do get picked up on by people I speak to, though, is a tendency to put a comparative -er together with 'even more', even when it doesn't need to be so emphasized:

"This one is red... But that one is even more redder."

My command of grammar in natural speech is atrocious.

YngNghymru wrote:Another thing - the use of funny trailing pronouns in subordinate clauses:

The man that I talked to him, remember?

The house they found the body under it, right?

The car that its mirror got knocked off.

Resumptive pronouns. Cool.



This reminds me, I've sometimes found myself using a topic - comment sentence structure, e.g.:

"The woman who's taking leaflets around - she's here again!"

"The red-haired girl I met at the concert - she'll be here today."

Also sometimes if I insert a parenthetical clause right after the subordinating conjunction "that", then I repeat it after:

"But you have to realize that, even if she doesn't show up tomorrow, that you still have to go."

... You are officially allowed to call my pronunciation the most fucked up thing ever now.
This table was not easy to make, and it took for ever.
This is my pronunciation of the different forms of Standard Swedish <morgon>, meaning morning (which I've chosen to spell <morgun> in this orthography).
Very inconsistent, and quite weird, while still actually very much like many other dialects.
I was still very surprised to find [møɳʂ]. Both final consonants are retroflex (and then they're not in the definite form!)!

Needless to say I don't have any of this nonsense with a rich system of case inflections that you've clearly invented for yourself after reading an Old Norse grammar, but morgen is funny for me too:

sg.indef: ["mo:on`] (sounds like one syllable with a very long vowel)
sg.def: ["mo:on`.n`=] (a very long vowel followed by a long consonant; phonologically it's three syllables /"mo:.on`.n/, but phonetically it sounds like one syllable)

The plural forms don't have the long vowel thing.
pl.indef ["mo:n`æ4_0]
pl.def: ["mo:n`An@]

What about your four genitive forms?

Just slap an s on the end, assimilate as needed, stir for five minutes.
["mo:on`s`]
["mo:on`.n`=s`]
["mo:n`æs`]
["mo:n`An@s]

Magb wrote:Just slap an s on the end, assimilate as needed, stir for five minutes.
["mo:on`s`]
["mo:on`.n`=s`]
["mo:n`æs`]
["mo:n`An@s]

You have even more retroflex s's than I do, so it's not "just an s". It's awesome.

"deodorant" [ˈdjəʊ̯ˌɾɵ˞̃ʔ], "obvious" [ˈɑbvjəs], etc.

Also, the /t/ in at least "thirteen" and "fourteen" is geminated: /TVrtin/ [ˈθɵ˞ʔˌtʰin] (or something like that; hell, it might even be ejective [ˈθɵ˞ʔˌtʼːin] for all I know) etc.

Nortaneous wrote:"deodorant" [ˈdjəʊ̯ˌɾɵ˞̃ʔ], "obvious" [ˈɑbvjəs], etc.

Also, the /t/ in at least "thirteen" and "fourteen" is geminated: /TVrtin/ [ˈθɵ˞ʔˌtʰin] (or something like that; hell, it might even be ejective [ˈθɵ˞ʔˌtʼːin] for all I know) etc.

I have:

[ˈtjoːɾɚˤn̩ʔ]
[ˈavjəs]
[ˈtʁ̩ˤɾin]
[ˈfɔːʁˤdin]

I myself have

deoderant: [ˈd̥jǒːɾʁ̩ˤːʁˤɨ̃ʔ]
obvious: [ˈaːvːjɨs]
thirteen: [ˈθʁˤt̚ˌtʰĩ(ː)n]
fourteen: [ˈfɔʁˤt̚ˌtʰĩ(ː)n]

Nortaneous wrote: Also, the /t/ in at least "thirteen" and "fourteen" is geminated: /TVrtin/ [ˈθɵ˞ʔˌtʰin] (or something like that; hell, it might even be ejective [ˈθɵ˞ʔˌtʼːin] for all I know) etc.

This is pretty common in Yorkshire English, and I find myself doing it with 'eighteen' and 'eighty', possibly through their influence.

(In careful/artificial speech, of course – damn observer's paradox!):
[θɹ̩tʰin]
[foɹtʰin]
[ti.ɵˑdəɹʷə̃nʔ]
[ɔvi.əs] (or [ɔbβi.əs] if i'm saying it very slow and/or taking the piss)

And damn you Verdana for putting diacritics in the wrong place!

Nortaneous wrote:"deodorant" [ˈdjəʊ̯̯ˌɾɵ˞̃ʔ], "obvious" [ˈɑbvjəs], etc.

Also, the /t/ in at least "thirteen" and "fourteen" is geminated: /TVrtin/ [ˈθɵ˞ʔˌtʰin] (or something like that; hell, it might even be ejective [ˈθɵ˞ʔˌtʼːin] for all I know) etc.

You pronounce the b in 'obvious'? I didn't know anyone did that.

I have [diɵʊdɹ̱ʷn̩ʔ], [ɒviəs], [fɜːtʰiːn], [fɔːtʰiːn]. The /t/ in the numbers seem to resist glottalisation, and this is probably the same phenomenon behind the geminates you have.

I have

deoderant: [djʌudɜ˞ɹɨnʔ]
obvious: [ɑb̪vjɨs] or [ɑⱱjɨs]
thirteen: [θɜ˞ʔtʰɪin]
fourteen: [fɔɹʔtʰɪin]

As well, I'm wondering how you guys form conditional sentences. Do you use the If...(past), then...(would) construction, as in

If I had known it was expired, I wouldn't have eaten it.

as opposed to the way a lot of Americans seem to (though I don't):

If I would have known it was expired, I wouldn't have eaten it.

I hear this most often in apparently contracted form from people who don't tend to say it uncontracted, which makes me uncertain as to whether the oft-heard (at least by me, and from several dialects) /ɪfaɪɾənəun/ is really a further shortening of If I'd have known, or if it's just If I'd known with an epenthetic schwa.

It's pretty fun how much stuff I contract, really.
Sentences I say can be pretty much shorter than the length of the Standard Swedish equivalent some times.

Han hade sagt att han fryser, om han hade gjort det, men han fryser ej. Havet ligger här, men det ligger åt minstone i väder från söder i dag, så det är ej kallt.
[han hadə sakt at han ˈfrysər, om han ˈhadə juːʈ deː, mɛn han ˈfrysər ɛɪ] [ˈhavət ˈlɪgər hæːr mɛn deː ˈlɪgər oːt ˈmɪnstɔnə iː ˈvæːdər froːn ˈsɶːdər iː dɑː soː deː æːr ɛɪ kalt]
[han had@ sakt at han "frys@r, om han "had@ ju:t` de:, mEn han "frys@r EI] ["hav@t "lIg@r h{:r mEn de: "lIg@r o:t "mInstOn@ i: "v{:d@r fro:n "s&:d@r i: dA: so: de: {:r EI kalt]

Han hà sagt at 'n frýs, gjórði 'n deð, men 'n frýs ei. Havið ligg her, men deð ligg að minsta í vèr frá sùr í dag, so deð er ei kalt.
[hɑnʲ hɑ sɑkt ɑtnʲ fryːˈʃuːrɪnʲˈɛː mɛnnʲ fryːsʲ aɪ] [ˈhaʷɪ ɭɪg hɛːr ˈmɛnˈɛː ɭɪg ɑː ˈmɪnsʲtɑ iː vɛːr froː sʏːr iː dɑːg soː daɪ kɑɭt]
[hAn' hA sAkt Atn' fry:"Su:rIn'"E: mEnn' fry:s' aI] ["ha_wI l`Ig hE:r "mEn"E: l`Ig A: "mIns'tA i: vE:r fro: sY:r i: dA:g so: daI kAl`t]

"He would've said that he's freezing, if he were, but he's not freezing. The sea lies here, but it's at least in weather from the south today, so it's not cold."

Just a random sentence, of course.

äreo wrote:I have

deoderant: [djʌudɜ˞ɹɨnʔ]
obvious: [ɑb̪vjɨs] or [ɑⱱjɨs]
thirteen: [θɜ˞ʔtʰɪin]
fourteen: [fɔɹʔtʰɪin]

As well, I'm wondering how you guys form conditional sentences. Do you use the If...(past), then...(would) construction, as in

If I had known it was expired, I wouldn't have eaten it.

as opposed to the way a lot of Americans seem to (though I don't):

If I would have known it was expired, I wouldn't have eaten it.

I hear this most often in apparently contracted form from people who don't tend to say it uncontracted, which makes me uncertain as to whether the oft-heard (at least by me, and from several dialects) /ɪfaɪɾənəun/ is really a further shortening of If I'd have known, or if it's just If I'd known with an epenthetic schwa.

I usually say "if I'd've known..." [ɪf ˈaɪ̯ɾə noːn]~[ɪf ˈaɪ̯ə noːn]

TaylorS wrote:

äreo wrote:I have

deoderant: [djʌudɜ˞ɹɨnʔ]
obvious: [ɑb̪vjɨs] or [ɑⱱjɨs]
thirteen: [θɜ˞ʔtʰɪin]
fourteen: [fɔɹʔtʰɪin]

As well, I'm wondering how you guys form conditional sentences. Do you use the If...(past), then...(would) construction, as in

If I had known it was expired, I wouldn't have eaten it.

as opposed to the way a lot of Americans seem to (though I don't):

If I would have known it was expired, I wouldn't have eaten it.

I hear this most often in apparently contracted form from people who don't tend to say it uncontracted, which makes me uncertain as to whether the oft-heard (at least by me, and from several dialects) /ɪfaɪɾənəun/ is really a further shortening of If I'd have known, or if it's just If I'd known with an epenthetic schwa.

I usually say "if I'd've known..." [ɪf ˈaɪ̯ɾə noːn]~[ɪf ˈaɪ̯ə noːn]

I think I'd say it like that too (but with a very different pronunciation).

Well, since my speech is screwed up anyways, I'll just post some general things:

deodorant: [dʲi'jou.dɚ.ɪnt]
obvious: ['ɔb.vi.jəs]
thirteen: [θɚ'tʲin]
fourteen: [foɚ'tʲin]

apricot: [əɪ.pɹɪ'kɔt]
pasta: ['pa.stə]

chili: [ʧɪ'li]
chilly: [ʧɪ'li]
Chile: ['ʧi.le]

Germany: [houm]

I use a construction of "had I known", for example, to form the conditional typically.

I have 'If I'd known' and 'if I'd've known' in free variation, but I never actually realised what 'd've was a contraction of - I always thought it was of 'had have', which grammatically makes no sense.