Ridiculously small phonemic differences thread

[sirdanilot]

ITT We post ridiculously small phonemic differences that you come across while linguisticizing about (yes that's a very bad creative derivation).\

I'm currently on a project on Dutch dialects; it's a corpus of about a gazilion Dutch dialects (in france, flanders and holland), also including Frisian and Limburgish etc, with word-by-word transcriptions and annotations in ipa. It's hopelessly old-fashioned (just a word list read aloud) because it started in the 1980s and is still not even remotely finished. In any case I come across some crazily small phonemic differences now and then. It does recognize the different status of Frisian in that the Frisian lists are slightly more elaborated, and the fieldworker is actually talking Frisian rather than Dutch to the informants.

For example, in the dialect of Aalten (in the east of the Netherlands), the difference between the -e suffix [-ə] and the -er suffix [-ər in standard Dutch] is nothing but /ə/ versus /ʌ/, or something like that. The r (usually pronounced uvular in coda) has dropped and the vowel preceding it backed. I am not even sure what the vowel is exactly. Sometimes, some remnant of uvular /r/ remains, but usually not. Now the -e suffix is a random dummy suffix that occurs on some adjectives and nouns, and the -er suffix is a very productive augmentative suffix, as well as a not-so productive plural suffix (like kind - kinder) and a dummy suffix on many words too (vader, moeder, dochter, water...). This means you get minimal pairs like dröge - dröger [drøxə - drøxʌ] 'dry, dryer'.

In many originally Saxon dialects, the -en suffix (infinitive suffix, very common plural suffix, etc.) has often dropped to just -n, but the consonant preceding it has also changed. This is often described as a glottal stop, but this is often only true for *-ten -> [-?n]. You can still hear a very slight difference between *-den and *-ten. I have transcribed this as unreleased d versus glottal stop, but I am not sure how accurate that is. This also goes for -ben vrsus -pen and -ken versus -gen (in these dialects, /g/ is often pronounced as such and not /x/ in these environments).

Of course we all know that English has ridiculous phonemic differences (sun - son etc.) so let's also focus on non-English languages please ! But if you know something fun in a certain variety of english by all means of course, but please don't make it english only. English is a ridiculous language, we know already.

[Nortaneous]

TA when I took German was from Bavaria or something, one of the dialects with [i:] for the first-person pronoun and å everywhere. She had [ɛ ɔ] for -e -er.

Actually better than the standard [ə ɐ], which distinction I can't hear at all.

[sirdanilot]

^ Both of those don't sound too ridiculous to me.

But then again I speak a language with a ridiculously large amount of vowel phonemes anyway.

come to think of it, the upside down a seems like a good way to describe the phenomenon I described above, better than the upside down v. Hrm...

[Richard W]

Of course we all know that English has ridiculous phonemic differences (sun - son etc.) so let's also focus on non-English languages please !

Which English dialects distinguish these two words?

[sangi39]

Of course we all know that English has ridiculous phonemic differences (sun - son etc.) so let's also focus on non-English languages please !

Which English dialects distinguish these two words?

I've heard a few people who pronounce them differently. The ones who do also seem to rhyme "son" with "one" (-ɒn), but how much of that was a spelling pronunciation rather than a dialectal feature I don't know (their "sun" was [sʊn], so it's been a Northern English thing in my experience).

[Ketumak]

Basque distinguishes 2 kinds of /s/ laminal and apical, written < z, s, > respectively. There's also 2 coresponding affricates, written < tz, ts >. I find the distinction audible, though my copy of "Colloquial Basque" advises that learners needn't bother with the distinction.

[Zaarin]

Basque distinguishes 2 kinds of /s/ laminal and apical, written < z, s, > respectively. There's also 2 coresponding affricates, written < tz, ts >. I find the distinction audible, though my copy of "Colloquial Basque" advises that learners needn't bother with the distinction.

Some indigenous languages of California distinguish a full set of dental and alveolar consonants, a feature I decided to use in a conlang (and to make things more confusing also distinguishes /s̪/ and /θ/, though /t̪͡s̪~t̪͡θ/ are in free variation--/θ/ actually comes from a post-vocalic lenition process and is in complementary distribution with non-geminate non-ejective /t̪ t̺/). The only dental in my conlang to not have an alveolar counterpart is /l̪/.

[Richard W]

There's the Polish contrast between an affricate /t͡ʂ/ (as in czy) and the cluster /tʂ/ (as in trzy).

I've heard a few people who pronounce them differently. The ones who do also seem to rhyme "son" with "one" (-ɒn), but how much of that was a spelling pronunciation rather than a dialectal feature I don't know (their "sun" was [sʊn], so it's been a Northern English thing in my experience).

That is quite a large phonetic difference. Rhyming one and won with wan is indeed seen as a spelling pronunciation, but it’s not a small difference in an RP-like accent ([ɐ] ~ [ɒ]).

[sangi39]

I've heard a few people who pronounce them differently. The ones who do also seem to rhyme "son" with "one" (-ɒn), but how much of that was a spelling pronunciation rather than a dialectal feature I don't know (their "sun" was [sʊn], so it's been a Northern English thing in my experience).

That is quite a large phonetic difference. Rhyming one and won with wan is indeed seen as a spelling pronunciation, but it’s not a small difference in an RP-like accent ([ɐ] ~ [ɒ]).

True, but my post was in response to a "which dialects?" question, rather than the main thread itself

[sirdanilot]

I am not a native speaker of English but I definitely pronounce sun and son differently in careful speech (not in my normal Dunglish speech of course), especially if I would be attemting to talk a posh British accent. Son is a bit lower than sun, I guess.

The u - ʊ difference that exists in a lot of languages (mainly african languages with ATR feature) is also staggeringly difficult, especially if these languages also have /o/ and /ɔ/. In a fieldwork class at the university we analyzed a west-african language, I believe Anyi, and we couldn't even get the vowel system right in that semester of in-class fieldwork sessions (and we made a point of it to not look it up on the internet as that would be lame).

---

On with Dutch dialects, the -en plural (which in many dialects has reduced to just -N with N being a corresponding nasal) produces some pretty crazy phonemic differences. In many dailects, [bo:m] and [bo:m̠] is the phonemic difference between what in standard dutch is boom - bomen (tree - trees). (I wanted to type a vertical stroke underneath the m to denote syllabic m, but that failed, so you'll have to do with a horizontal stroke). I believe this is also the source of tone in some limburgish dialects, where the only difference between singular and plural pairs is the tone difference, but there are also other processes here, such as the dummy -e suffix, umlaut etc.
I would not call this a geminate consonant, because the nasal 'syllable' also receives, well, 'tone' (as in, you can clearly hear that the word is bisyllabic, not just a longer m).

[KathTheDragon]

(I wanted to type a vertical stroke underneath the m to denote syllabic m, but that failed, so you'll have to do with a horizontal stroke)

Here ya go! m̩

[Qwynegold]

There's Swedish /iː/ vs /y͑ː/ (exolabial) vs /y͗ː/ (endolabial), such as in ni (you-PL) - nu (now) - ny (new).

I find Bulgarian weird with its /a/ and /ɐ/, though there might something going on with that distinction; the WP article is so unclear I can't make any sense out of it.

[din]

I
In many originally Saxon dialects, the -en suffix (infinitive suffix, very common plural suffix, etc.) has often dropped to just -n, but the consonant preceding it has also changed. This is often described as a glottal stop, but this is often only true for *-ten -> [-?n]. You can still hear a very slight difference between *-den and *-ten. I have transcribed this as unreleased d versus glottal stop, but I am not sure how accurate that is. This also goes for -ben vrsus -pen and -ken versus -gen (in these dialects, /g/ is often pronounced as such and not /x/ in these environments).

I think I would transcribe them as follows:
hebben [ɦɛbᵐ] vs kappen [kɑpᵐ] (both with a nasal release).

I think German dialects which have a similar pronunciation for their -en suffix are generally also transcribed this way. But I can definitely hear the glottalization between the voiceless plosives and the nasal release. So maybe [kap̚ʔᵐ] (with a tie bar) ?

[TaylorS]

Many English dialects distinguish a "schwi" sound (near-close central vowel) distinct from schwa (mid central vowel).

I actually have the distinction and I still have trouble hearing it!

[----]

There's the Polish contrast between an affricate /t͡ʂ/ (as in czy) and the cluster /tʂ/ (as in trzy).

Crow makes a similar distinction between /tʃ/ and /t͡ʃ/:

baachí - he remains
baatshí - I slip and fall

[CatDoom]

Some indigenous languages of California distinguish a full set of dental and alveolar consonants, a feature I decided to use in a conlang (and to make things more confusing also distinguishes /s̪/ and /θ/, though /t̪͡s̪~t̪͡θ/ are in free variation--/θ/ actually comes from a post-vocalic lenition process and is in complementary distribution with non-geminate non-ejective /t̪ t̺/). The only dental in my conlang to not have an alveolar counterpart is /l̪/.

Going a step or two further, Australian languages typically distinguish four coronal places of articulation: apical alveolar /t/, laminal dental /t̪/, (sub-)apical retroflex /ʈ/, and laminal postalveolar /t̠/. Yanyuwa has phonemic plain stops, prenasalized stops, nasals, and laterals at all of these places of articulation, and also has two dorsal places of articulation, both of which are in front of the uvula. The mind boggles...

[Pole, the]

There's the Polish contrast between an affricate /t͡ʂ/ (as in czy) and the cluster /tʂ/ (as in trzy).

Crow makes a similar distinction between /tʃ/ and /t͡ʃ/:

baachí - he remains
baatshí - I slip and fall

One of the Germanic ethnolects, namely English, does it as well:

catch it — catch it
cat shit — cat shit

[Rui]

There's the Polish contrast between an affricate /t͡ʂ/ (as in czy) and the cluster /tʂ/ (as in trzy).

Crow makes a similar distinction between /tʃ/ and /t͡ʃ/:

baachí - he remains
baatshí - I slip and fall

One of the Germanic ethnolects, namely English, does it as well:

catch it — catch it
cat shit — cat shit

"catch" frequently has [ɛ] in many American dialects, at least. I'm trying to think if I have it in careful speech as well to see if I have it as underlyingly /æ/ but I'm starting to get some observer bias and whatnot. However, I can't think of any instances off the top of my head where /æ/ is realized as [ɛ], especially in similar words like "match" and "patch", so I'm not confident about that...

[KathTheDragon]

SSBE has /a/ in <cat> and <catch>.

[Nortaneous]

I have [E] there, and anyway that only applies across morpheme boundaries.

Kensiu distinguishes /ɛ e e̝ ɪ i ie/ and /ɔ o o̝ u/, plus nasalized versions of all of those.

Iau has two triphthongs: /aɯi aʊ̜ɪ/.

Japhug rGyalrong distinguishes /c tɕ tsj kj qj/. Some rGyalrongic languages have contrastive velarization on vowels.

Cabiyari has twelve consonants and contrasts dental, alveolar, and postalveolar POA in plosives.

[Zaarin]

Some indigenous languages of California distinguish a full set of dental and alveolar consonants, a feature I decided to use in a conlang (and to make things more confusing also distinguishes /s̪/ and /θ/, though /t̪͡s̪~t̪͡θ/ are in free variation--/θ/ actually comes from a post-vocalic lenition process and is in complementary distribution with non-geminate non-ejective /t̪ t̺/). The only dental in my conlang to not have an alveolar counterpart is /l̪/.

Going a step or two further, Australian languages typically distinguish four coronal places of articulation: apical alveolar /t/, laminal dental /t̪/, (sub-)apical retroflex /ʈ/, and laminal postalveolar /t̠/. Yanyuwa has phonemic plain stops, prenasalized stops, nasals, and laterals at all of these places of articulation, and also has two dorsal places of articulation, both of which are in front of the uvula. The mind boggles...

And I'm still struggling to hear the distinction between the two points of articulation in my conlang...

There's the Polish contrast between an affricate /t͡ʂ/ (as in czy) and the cluster /tʂ/ (as in trzy).

Crow makes a similar distinction between /tʃ/ and /t͡ʃ/:

baachí - he remains
baatshí - I slip and fall

One of the Germanic ethnolects, namely English, does it as well:

catch it — catch it
cat shit — cat shit

"catch" frequently has [ɛ] in many American dialects, at least. I'm trying to think if I have it in careful speech as well to see if I have it as underlyingly /æ/ but I'm starting to get some observer bias and whatnot. However, I can't think of any instances off the top of my head where /æ/ is realized as [ɛ], especially in similar words like "match" and "patch", so I'm not confident about that...

I think I actually have [ɛ~æ] in free variation in "catch" only, but [ɛ] is certainly the more common realization for me. But I tend to centralizing quite a few of my vowels (e.g., I pronounce both "and/end" with [ɛ], same with "since/sense" {yes, I have a backwards pin/pen merger--but not for the words "pin" or "pen"...}).

[Tropylium]

Skolt, Akkala, Kildin and Ter Sami distinguish "heavy" and "light" palatalization. Though given that Uralistics traditionally does not contrast palatalized consonants with primary palatal consonants, and given that only "coronals" can be "heavily" palatalized, I'd guess this is actually something like /nʲ lʲ sʲ/ etc. vs. /ɲ ʎ ɕ/.

Some indigenous languages of California distinguish a full set of dental and alveolar consonants

Going a step or two further, Australian languages typically distinguish four coronal places of articulation: apical alveolar /t/, laminal dental /t̪/, (sub-)apical retroflex /ʈ/, and laminal postalveolar /t̠/.

A step further yet, Toda distinguishes five coronal non-lateral fricatives: /θ s̪ s̠ ʃ ʂ/. It also has /f ɬ̪ ɬ̢ x/. It moreover distinguishes three sets of coronal trills, and palatalized versions of all of them: /r̘ r̘ʲ r̠ r̠ʲ ɽ͡r ɽ͡rʲ/.

[Pole, the]

There's Swedish /iː/ vs /y͑ː/ (exolabial) vs /y͗ː/ (endolabial), such as in ni (you-PL) - nu (now) - ny (new).

It seems Swedish is helluva vocalic crowdedness.

There's the Polish contrast between an affricate /t͡ʂ/ (as in czy) and the cluster /tʂ/ (as in trzy).

Also, Polish makes a difference between e.g. [tʃip] and [tɕip].

TA when I took German was from Bavaria or something, one of the dialects with [i:] for the first-person pronoun and å everywhere.

“å everywhere”?

[vokzhen]

According to Wikipedia, some Irish dialects still maintain a four-way distinction in laterals and nasals, overlapping broad/slender with the fortis/lenis contrast that gave rise to fricatives in plosives: /l̪ˠ lˠ lʲ l̠ʲ/ and /n̪ˠ nˠ nʲ n̠ʲ/, throwing in /ɲ/ (a palatalized velar) for good measure.

[Qwynegold]

There's the Polish contrast between an affricate /t͡ʂ/ (as in czy) and the cluster /tʂ/ (as in trzy).

Crow makes a similar distinction between /tʃ/ and /t͡ʃ/:

baachí - he remains
baatshí - I slip and fall

Does it happen to be that the non-affricate is always broken up by a syllable boundary?