The "How do You Pronounce X" Thread

[Znex]

How about "hole", "whole", "holy", "holey", and "wholly"?

[ˈhɔʊ̯] [ˈhɔʊ̯] [ˈhɔʊ̯li] [ˈhɔʊ̯li] [ˈhɔli~ˈhɔʊ̯li]

(I usually say "wholly" so to rhyme with "holly" because of spelling pronunciation I guess)

[Travis B.]

How about "hole", "whole", "holy", "holey", and "wholly"?

[ho(ː)ʊ ho(ː)ʊ hoːʟ̞i(ː)~hoːʊi(ː) hoːʟ̞i(ː)~hoːʊi(ː) hoːʟ̞ːi(ː)]

[Travis B.]

Have we had “can” vs ”can't”?

For can I have [kʰn̩(ː)] when unstressed and [kʰɛ̃(ː)(n)] when stressed (but tend to drop the [n] before consonants and in less careful speech and preserve it before vowels and in more careful speech).

For can't I have [kʰɛ̃ʔ] except before vowels, where I also have [kʰɛ̃ɾ̃] and just [kʰɛ̃] in free variation.

[finlay]

Is there likely to be much variation? [ˈkʰæn] [ˈkʰænt]

There is indeed. English people have [æ] vs [ɑː], and can has a reduced vowel (schwa or whatever) in most utterances, in most accents – if you say you never do this, I don't believe you – while can't is rarely reduced as it's usually the stressed word in the sentence.

(Also, many scottish people say cannae for can't lmao)

My problem is, if "can" is stressed they sound almost identical because i have [kʰan] ~ [kʰanʔ] usually (where [a] can be [æ] or front/central [a]) and I often have to say [kʰantʰ] or affect an English accent to make them distinct. (when I'm teaching I often subconsciously affect an English or American accent to make myself more understandable)

I also think I pronounce wholly as /hol.li/ (like [hoʊɫ.ɫɪ] or something), and it confused me because my friends in uni started a folk group called Wholly Folk, and for a long time I thought it was called Holy Folk because they pronounced Wholly and Holy the same (it put me off going there because I was going through a period of actively rejecting religion). Like I knew it was only supposed to be a pun anyway, but I didn't realise both words were punning.

Also mentally I syllabicise 'holy' as ho.ly and 'holey' as hole.y, but I can't honestly convince myself that it shows up in the pronunciation reliably.

[Travis B.]

My problem is, if "can" is stressed they sound almost identical because i have [kʰan] ~ [kʰanʔ] usually (where [a] can be [æ] or front/central [a]) and I often have to say [kʰantʰ] or affect an English accent to make them distinct. (when I'm teaching I often subconsciously affect an English or American accent to make myself more understandable)

I personally find stressed can and can't in GA very hard to tell apart before fortis obstruents, as the fortis obstruent causes the vowel length difference to be neutralized, and often GA speakers drop the [ʔ] in can't in such environments rather than the [n] as I do.

[Zaarin]

Is there likely to be much variation? [ˈkʰæn] [ˈkʰænt]

There is indeed. English people have [æ] vs [ɑː], and can has a reduced vowel (schwa or whatever) in most utterances, in most accents – if you say you never do this, I don't believe you – while can't is rarely reduced as it's usually the stressed word in the sentence.

I didn't say I never reduce can, but I'm reasonably confident that I only do so in quick speech. Under most circumstances, I definitely have a vowel in can, though it may reduce to [ɛ] (æ > ɛ, especially before a resonant, is frequent but inconsistent in my idiolect).

(Also, many scottish people say cannae for can't lmao)

I've been known to use it jocularly...

[Znex]

How do you pronounce these military terms: "soldier", "officer", "cavalry", "morale", "siege", "colonel", "lieutenant", "camouflage", "rendezvous", "sortie"?

[Zaarin]

soldier [ˈsɔʊ̯lʤɹ̩ˁ]
officer [ˈɔˑfɪsɹ̩ˁ]
cavalry [ˈkʰævl̩ɹ̠ˁi]
morale [mɵˈɹ̠ˁæˑl]
siege [ˈsi:ʤ]
colonel [ˈkʰɹ̩ˁnl̩]
lieutenant [luˈtʰɛnn̩t]
camouflage [ˈkʰæməˌflɑʒ] or maybe [ˈkʰæmɵˌflɑʒ]
rendezvous [ˌɹ̠ˁɑndɛɪ̯ˈvu] or [ʀɑ̃devu]
sortie [sɔʊ̯ɹ̠ˁˈtiˑ]

[jal]

soldier [ˈsɔʊ̯lʤɹ̩ˁ]
officer [ˈɔˑfɪsɹ̩ˁ]
cavalry [ˈkʰævl̩ɹ̠ˁi]
morale [mɵˈɹ̠ˁæl]
siege [ˈsiʤ]
colonel [ˈkʰɹ̩ˁnl̩]
lieutenant [luˈtʰɛnn̩t]
camouflage [ˈkʰæməˌflɑʒ] or maybe [ˈkʰæmɵˌflɑʒ]
rendezvous [ˌɹ̠ˁɑndɛɪ̯ˈvu] or [ʀɑ̃devu]
sortie [sɔʊ̯ɹ̠ˁˈtiˑ]

Did you intentionally not mark length or don't you have lenghtening in "morale", "siege" and "camouflage"? In "siege" especially I'd expect long [i:].


JAL

[Travis B.]

soldier: [ˈsoːʊtɕʁ̩(ː)]
officer: [ˈɒfɘsʲʁ̩(ː)]
cavalry: [ˈkʰɛːvɯːʁi(ː)]
morale: [ˌmɔːˈʁʷɛ(ː)ɤ]
siege: [siːʃ]
colonel: [ˈkʰʁ̩̃ːˌnɯ(ː)]
lieutenant: [ˌʟ̞uˈtʰɜ̃ː(n)ɘ̃ʔ]
camouflage: [ˈkʰɛ̃ːməˌfɰaːʃ]
rendezvous: [ˈʁʷãːdeːˌvu(ː)]
sortie: [ˈsɔʁti(ː)]

[Travis B.]

soldier [ˈsɔʊ̯lʤɹ̩ˁ]
officer [ˈɔˑfɪsɹ̩ˁ]
cavalry [ˈkʰævl̩ɹ̠ˁi]
morale [mɵˈɹ̠ˁæl]
siege [ˈsiʤ]
colonel [ˈkʰɹ̩ˁnl̩]
lieutenant [luˈtʰɛnn̩t]
camouflage [ˈkʰæməˌflɑʒ] or maybe [ˈkʰæmɵˌflɑʒ]
rendezvous [ˌɹ̠ˁɑndɛɪ̯ˈvu] or [ʀɑ̃devu]
sortie [sɔʊ̯ɹ̠ˁˈtiˑ]

Did you intentionally not mark length or don't you have lenghtening in "morale", "siege" and "camouflage"? In "siege" especially I'd expect long [i:].

A lot of people do not mark allophonic vowel length.

[Zaarin]

soldier [ˈsɔʊ̯lʤɹ̩ˁ]
officer [ˈɔˑfɪsɹ̩ˁ]
cavalry [ˈkʰævl̩ɹ̠ˁi]
morale [mɵˈɹ̠ˁæl]
siege [ˈsiʤ]
colonel [ˈkʰɹ̩ˁnl̩]
lieutenant [luˈtʰɛnn̩t]
camouflage [ˈkʰæməˌflɑʒ] or maybe [ˈkʰæmɵˌflɑʒ]
rendezvous [ˌɹ̠ˁɑndɛɪ̯ˈvu] or [ʀɑ̃devu]
sortie [sɔʊ̯ɹ̠ˁˈtiˑ]

Did you intentionally not mark length or don't you have lenghtening in "morale", "siege" and "camouflage"? In "siege" especially I'd expect long [i:].


JAL

I do not have lengthening in "camouflage," but I do have lengthening in "siege" and slight lengthening in "morale." I've updated my post accordingly. Even though I use it in quite a few of my conlangs, I don't really tend to think about length since I can't think of any minimal pairs in my dialect/idiolect.

EDIT: As Travis said.

[jal]

EDIT: As Travis said.

The reason I asked is that you seem to be very precise otherwise (the transcription seems rather narrow).


JAL

[Zaarin]

EDIT: As Travis said.

The reason I asked is that you seem to be very precise otherwise (the transcription seems rather narrow).


JAL

Fair enough. Like I said, vowel length isn't something I tend to think much about since it's not phonemic for my dialect or idiolect.

[Travis B.]

Vowel length is not phonemic in my dialect, but it is critical for word-recognition - I tend to not understand people's speech when they speak with the "wrong" vowel length.

(Note that I generally do not have trouble with English dialects with phonemic vowel length, as allophonic vowel length is typically still superimposed on top of it.)

[Znex]

soldier ['sɔʊ̯dʒ̯ɐ]
officer ['ɔfəsɐ]
cavalry [ˈkʰavʊɻʷi]
morale [mɔ'ɻʷaʊ̯]
siege [sɪi̯ʤ]
colonel [ˈkʰœːnʊ]
lieutenant [lʉ'tʰɛ̃nə̃t]
camouflage ['kʰæ̃mə,flɐːʒ]
rendezvous ['ɻʷɔ̃dɛɪ̯,vʉː]
sortie ['soːɾi]

[Sumelic]

soldier [ˈsɔɫʤɚ]
officer [ˈɑfɪsɚ]
cavalry [ˈkʰavɫ̩ɹʷi]
morale [mɔ˞ˈɹʷaˑɫ]
siege [ˈsiˑdʒ̊] or [ˈsiˑʒ̊]
colonel [ˈkʰɚnɫ̩]
lieutenant [luˈtʰɛnn̩ʔt]
camouflage [ˈkʰæməˌflɑˑʒ̊]
rendezvous [ˈɹʷɑndɪvu] or [ˈɹʷɑndɛɪ̯vu]
sortie [sɔ˞ɾi]

[Vijay]

Do you say "Irrawaddy" or "Ayeyarwady" (or something else), and how do you pronounce it?

EDIT: Ah, I just found the other word I was wondering about. How do (or would) you pronounce "Asplundh"?

[Travis B.]

This is not a request to have a word pronounced, but just a comment on something I said quite a while back. When I said that there was pitch accent-like phenomenon in my dialect, which clearly sounds completely my-dialect-is-a-special-snowflake-ish, from paying some more attention to it it appears to be allophonic, namely that syllables starting in fortis obstruents or especially ending in fortis plosives (but not fricatives) tend to have a higher pitch than other syllables with similar stress and syllables starting in lenis obstruents or ending in lenis plosives (but not fricatives) tend to have a lower pitch than other syllables with similar stress, and other syllables (e.g. syllables starting with sonorants) are in between, and furthermore a stressed syllable followed by a syllable ending in a fortis plosive where the intervocalic consonant(s) are elided tend to result in a level pitch whereas a stressed syllable followed by a syllable not ending in a fortis plosive where the intervocalic consonant(s) are elided tend to result in a falling pitch. Note that this is synchronic in nature, e.g.. didn't is pronounced as if there were no final /t/ despite having historically had one. Also, while it could become phonemic with subsequent sound change, there is no sign of it being phonemic now.

[Sumelic]

This is not a request to have a word pronounced, but just a comment on something I said quite a while back. When I said that there was pitch accent-like phenomenon in my dialect, which clearly sounds completely my-dialect-is-a-special-snowflake-ish, from paying some more attention to it it appears to be allophonic, namely that syllables starting in fortis obstruents or especially ending in fortis plosives (but not fricatives) tend to have a higher pitch than other syllables with similar stress and syllables starting in lenis obstruents or ending in lenis plosives (but not fricatives) tend to have a lower pitch than other syllables with similar stress, and other syllables (e.g. syllables starting with sonorants) are in between, and furthermore a stressed syllable followed by a syllable ending in a fortis plosive where the intervocalic consonant(s) are elided tend to result in a level pitch whereas a stressed syllable followed by a syllable not ending in a fortis plosive where the intervocalic consonant(s) are elided tend to result in a falling pitch. Note that this is synchronic in nature, e.g.. didn't is pronounced as if there were no final /t/ despite having historically had one. Also, while it could become phonemic with subsequent sound change, there is no sign of it being phonemic now.

Isn't higher pitch after phonemically voiceless consonants, and lower pitch after phonemically voiced consonants a general thing in phonetics? IIRC, that's the explanation used for a lot of tonogenesis. As you say, it only becomes phonemic if the contrast between the two types of consonant is lost. It's mentioned as a general thing for English in this Language Log post: Consonant effects on F0 of following vowels There are some differences between what you describe and what Liberman describes at the link: Liberman finds that in his sample, voiced plosives are intermediate between nasals and voiceless plosives, and he doesn't look at the effects of coda consonants at all.

[Travis B.]

This is not a request to have a word pronounced, but just a comment on something I said quite a while back. When I said that there was pitch accent-like phenomenon in my dialect, which clearly sounds completely my-dialect-is-a-special-snowflake-ish, from paying some more attention to it it appears to be allophonic, namely that syllables starting in fortis obstruents or especially ending in fortis plosives (but not fricatives) tend to have a higher pitch than other syllables with similar stress and syllables starting in lenis obstruents or ending in lenis plosives (but not fricatives) tend to have a lower pitch than other syllables with similar stress, and other syllables (e.g. syllables starting with sonorants) are in between, and furthermore a stressed syllable followed by a syllable ending in a fortis plosive where the intervocalic consonant(s) are elided tend to result in a level pitch whereas a stressed syllable followed by a syllable not ending in a fortis plosive where the intervocalic consonant(s) are elided tend to result in a falling pitch. Note that this is synchronic in nature, e.g.. didn't is pronounced as if there were no final /t/ despite having historically had one. Also, while it could become phonemic with subsequent sound change, there is no sign of it being phonemic now.

Isn't higher pitch after phonemically voiceless consonants, and lower pitch after phonemically voiced consonants a general thing in phonetics? IIRC, that's the explanation used for a lot of tonogenesis. As you say, it only becomes phonemic if the contrast between the two types of consonant is lost. It's mentioned as a general thing for English in this Language Log post: Consonant effects on F0 of following vowels There are some differences between what you describe and what Liberman describes at the link: Liberman finds that in his sample, voiced plosives are intermediate between nasals and voiceless plosives, and he doesn't look at the effects of coda consonants at all.

To me it seems to be clearly fortis obstruents > nasals > lenis obstruents, as in e.g. Ted > Ned > dead. And note that I specifically said fortis versus lenis, not voiceless versus voiced; Ted and dead both start with voiceless consonants for me, distinguished by aspiration.

[Sumelic]

To me it seems to be clearly fortis obstruents > nasals > lenis obstruents, as in e.g. Ted > Ned > dead. And note that I specifically said fortis versus lenis, not voiceless versus voiced; Ted and dead both start with voiceless consonants for me, distinguished by aspiration.

That may be the best description at the phonetic level, but when making comparisons across languages it makes more sense to me to use voiced/voiceless as the phonemic categories. It looks like you do have voiced allophones of these consonants, so I don't see the problem with classifying them as phonemically more "voiced" relative to the "fortis" series. I mean, there's similar things with Icelandic, German varieties, Korean, where you can use the terms "fortis" and "lenis," but whatever you call it, the contrast still has a lot of parallels to the "voiceless/voiced" distinction that exists in other languages. I don't know what the best umbrella term is. Maybe I should have just said "higher VOT, lower VOT."

[Frislander]

"soldier" [ˈso̞ld͡ʒə]
"officer" [ˈɒfɪsə]
"cavalry" [ˈkavl̩ɹi]
"morale" [mɒˈɹɑːɫ]
"siege" [ˈsiːd͡ʒ]
"colonel" [ˈkɜːnl̩]
"lieutenant" [lɛfˈtɛnn̩t]
"camouflage" [ˈkaməflɑːʒ]
"rendezvous" [ˈɹɒndeɪvu]
"sortie" [ˈsɔːti]

Also my "dark ls" aren't very dark, and my stress isn't that strong either.

[Travis B.]

To me it seems to be clearly fortis obstruents > nasals > lenis obstruents, as in e.g. Ted > Ned > dead. And note that I specifically said fortis versus lenis, not voiceless versus voiced; Ted and dead both start with voiceless consonants for me, distinguished by aspiration.

That may be the best description at the phonetic level, but when making comparisons across languages it makes more sense to me to use voiced/voiceless as the phonemic categories. It looks like you do have voiced allophones of these consonants, so I don't see the problem with classifying them as phonemically more "voiced" relative to the "fortis" series. I mean, there's similar things with Icelandic, German varieties, Korean, where you can use the terms "fortis" and "lenis," but whatever you call it, the contrast still has a lot of parallels to the "voiceless/voiced" distinction that exists in other languages. I don't know what the best umbrella term is. Maybe I should have just said "higher VOT, lower VOT."

I personally prefer fortis versus lenis because they are more general, allowing one to treat languages with a mixture of aspiration and voicing and length contrasts side by side rather than treating voicing as different from aspiration as different from length. So when you said voiceless versus voiced, what you meant is fortis versus lenis.

[Chengjiang]

In the word horseshoe, do you pronounce the sibilant portion as [sʃ], [ʃː], [ʃ], or something else?

I think I normally have [ʃː], but I'm not 100% confident that thinking about it isn't throwing off my pronunciation from normal.