The "How do You Pronounce X" Thread

[Drydic]

['ɪː.ɹʷˤɒ̝̽s]

Before /r/ NEAR and CURE vowels lose the /@/ dipthong and become extended.

How do you have a clue which vowel to map it to? Seriously.

[Thry]

Yeah I just took erotic and applied the pronunciation -os# usually has in English.

as oUs? but that's when -os is from a plural right? <-oes>-ish?
Also erotic has [ I] for me.

Fuck, I can't think of any Greek -os words, though I can think of moss, loss, and cross.

[ol bofosh]

['ɪː.ɹʷˤɒ̝̽s]

Before /r/ NEAR and CURE vowels lose the /@/ dipthong and become extended.

How do you have a clue which vowel to map it to? Seriously.

How do you mean?

Do you mean [ɒ̝̽]? It's roughly level with my /6/. And a bit down and in from my /O:/. And when I do my posh /Q/ there's quite a difference. Unless I have those completely wrong...

I've just remembered:
Posh: [ˈɪə.rʷˤɒs]
Vulgar [ˈʔɪ.β̞rˤɔ̽s]

[finlay]

oh god you're worse than travis at transcriptions...

[ol bofosh]

oh god you're worse than travis at transcriptions...

Thanks, I've had a lot practice. And I need a lot more...

[Drydic]

Yeah I just took erotic and applied the pronunciation -os# usually has in English.

as oUs? but that's when -os is from a plural right? <-oes>-ish?

Well yes but where else does English have -os#? Not too many places...

Also erotic has [ I] for me.

Da fuq.

Fuck, I can't think of any Greek -os words, though I can think of moss, loss, and cross.

Logos.

['ɪː.ɹʷˤɒ̝̽s]

Before /r/ NEAR and CURE vowels lose the /@/ dipthong and become extended.

How do you have a clue which vowel to map it to? Seriously.

How do you mean?

Mostly the .

Do you mean [ɒ̝̽]? It's roughly level with my /6/. And a bit down and in from my /O:/. And when I do my posh /Q/ there's quite a difference. Unless I have those completely wrong...

I've just remembered:
Posh: [ˈɪə.rʷˤɒs]
Vulgar [ˈʔɪ.β̞rˤɔ̽s]

You...are not speaking English...seriously how the fuck do you get anything resembling a bilabial approximant in there

[finlay]

I think it's a failure to understand that rʷ contains no velar element (even though w does) and he wants to try and approximate this by showing a bilabial approximant. Also that glottal stop does not belong in there; say it in a sentence and you'll see why. Glottal stops* only occur in utterance initial position when speaking English, and that's because they result from us opening our mouths to say shit. They're inaudible. They don't crop up in the middle of a sentence.

*aside from those that are actually /t/ of course.

Oh and your use of r instead of ɹ is incongruous with the three diacritics on the vowel thing.

[Thry]

so how do you say logos? low ghos...t?

[Drydic]

so how do you say logos? low ghos...t?

Yeah, exactly that.

[ol bofosh]

You...are not speaking English...seriously how the fuck do you get anything resembling a bilabial approximant in there

It's the first time I've experimented with putting it there. In comparison with my posh accent it's "very labialised" to the extent that /B_o/ seemed appropriate. Whether it's actually appropriate is another thing, but that's why I share it here. You guys are good at sniffing anything amiss out.

Oh and your use of r instead of ɹ is incongruous with the three diacritics on the vowel thing.

Bugger it, I was supposed to use ɹ. It's incongruous with how I usually write it.

so how do you say logos? low ghos...t?

Logos as in "the Logos" is ['lɒ̝̽.gɒ̝̽s]. As in plural of logo it's ['lɜʉ̯.gɜʉ̯z].

[Pole, the]

[Er\oUs]

Apparently the "correct" answer is /ˈɪərɒs/ or /ˈɛrɒs/ (meaning /ˈerɑs/ for me). But I don't think I've ever heard it spoken and I wasn't sure until I looked it up just now how it was "supposed" to be pronounced. I probably would have gone with /ˈeros/.

[ɛɾɔs]. English phonetics are shit. Polish ftw.

[ol bofosh]

Okay, latest speculation on my weird /r/: I have a [ʋʷ] sort of thing going on, along with [ɹˤ]. [ʋ] is lost in my posh accent and also in the intrusive-r.
Compare:
thawing [ˈθɔː.ɹʷˤɪ̈ŋ]
boring [ˈbɔː.ʋɹʷˤɪ̈ŋ]
At least until the next best idea comes along.

[R.Rusanov]

That's too many diacritics for my taste. Brits should just pronounce their rhotics like civilized people.

[Whimemsz]

Okay, latest speculation on my weird /r/: I have a [ʋʷ] sort of thing going on, along with [ɹˤ]. [ʋ] is lost in my posh accent and also in the intrusive-r.
Compare:
thawing [ˈθɔː.ɹʷˤɪ̈ŋ]
boring [ˈbɔː.ʋɹʷˤɪ̈ŋ]
At least until the next best idea comes along.

Surely you mean [ˈb̥ɔ̝ː.ʋɹʷˤɪ̈̃ŋ]???

[Astraios]

Non-rhotic Brits should just pronounce their rhotics like civilized people.

Better.

[Radius Solis]

Glottal stops* only occur in utterance initial position when speaking English, and that's because they result from us opening our mouths to say shit.

Where do you get that idea, out of interest? I've seen it floating around before, and I can only surmise it to be based on a misconception that a glottal stop is the resting position of our oral tracts before speech. Which it isn't - you cannot breathe with your glottis closed. And I can come up with no reason why it should go from open to closed to open again just so you can start speaking.

[Ars Lande]

[Er\oUs]

Apparently the "correct" answer is /ˈɪərɒs/ or /ˈɛrɒs/ (meaning /ˈerɑs/ for me). But I don't think I've ever heard it spoken and I wasn't sure until I looked it up just now how it was "supposed" to be pronounced. I probably would have gone with /ˈeros/.

Thanks, guys. That's a little reassuring; my guess was the same as Drydic Guy's, so maybe I understand a thing or two about English pronunciation after all!

[ol bofosh]

Surely you mean [ˈb̥ɔ̝ː.ʋɹʷˤɪ̈̃ŋ]???

[ˈb̥ɔ̝ː.ʋɹ̙ʷˤɪ̈̃ŋ]

Cos it's post-alveorlar.

[finlay]

Glottal stops* only occur in utterance initial position when speaking English, and that's because they result from us opening our mouths to say shit.

Where do you get that idea, out of interest? I've seen it floating around before, and I can only surmise it to be based on a misconception that a glottal stop is the resting position of our oral tracts before speech. Which it isn't - you cannot breathe with your glottis closed. And I can come up with no reason why it should go from open to closed to open again just so you can start speaking.

why else do people sometimes include them in transcriptions? the main point about this is to point out that while there may be a glottal stop in word-initial position in english sometimes, it never occurs utterance-medially and it's not phonemic. (it is a different story in languages like german or arabic, i hear. and even though i've never heard them in spoken japanese i constantly have to stop my students from inserting glottal stops in hiatus positions when they speak english)

well i dunno maybe i just find it difficult to start a voiced vowel from a pause (in controlled conditions where i say words over and over without context) without doing exactly that – closing it and opening it again to the more precise position of making a voiced sound? not that i have control over it.

[Ser]

(it is a different story in languages like german or arabic, i hear. and even though i've never heard them in spoken japanese i constantly have to stop my students from inserting glottal stops in hiatus positions when they speak english)

Interestingly enough, yeah, I've never heard them in spoken English, yet English-speaking students of Spanish/French/Latin do it all the time when facing vowel combinations that don't exist in English.

This is a good example of this phenomenon. He does it e.g. in Deum [ˈdɛʔʊm] (0:15, 0:22), tenebrae eam [ˈtʰɛnɛbɾaɪ ˈʔɛʔɑm] (0:43), Deo [dɛʔɔ] (0:50). Though perhaps also out of over-careful pronunciation, he even does it sometimes before a word-initial vowel following a consonant: ut omnes [ʔʊt ʔɔmneːs] (1:02), quae illuminat [kʰwɑɪ ʔɪˈlumɪnɑt], factus est [ˈfɑktʊs ʔɛst] (1:28), mundus eum [ˈmʊndʊs ʔɛʔʊm] (1:30).

And I don't think it has to do with the reconstruction he's using, since he doesn't use a glottal stop in vowel combinations which he finds more natural, namely CɪV (probably because of words like "pure" and "communion" in English), e.g. principio [priːnˈkɪpɪoː] (0:11), omnia [ˈɔmnɪɑ] (0:14), testimonium [tʰɛstɪˈmɔːnɪʊm] (0:57, 0:59); as well as "ui" (probably because of words like "gooey"), e.g. fuit (0:48) [ˈfuːɪt], sui [ˈsuːiː] (1:36).

[Ser]

[ˌse.ta.βe.βe̯a.ˈðo.ɾes]

mushroom-zed merger never fails to make me smile :D
[θe.βe.ˈβe.ɾos]

Also, I'd prefer to refer to it as the "marry-hunt" (casar-cazar) merger.

[Thry]

That's more elegant; I yield.
[kon.θe.ˈðio̯]

[ol bofosh]

Word: aquatic.
I was surprised to hear /əˈkʰwɑːtɪk/ (and then see it on Wiktionary).

Me: [ə.ˈkʰwæ.tɪ̈k]

[Thry]

[ə.ˈkwɑ.tɪk]

cos I'd say* aqua as [ˈæ.kwɑ] and aqueous as [ˈæ.kwəs].

Also [ˈæ.kwɑ.pɑ.ɹɪnz] aquaporins, and Aquaman [ˈæ.kwɑ.mæn]

I probably have it all wrong, though.

*I know these two don't exist.

[----]

Aquatic: [əˈkʰwaɾɪk]
Aqueous: [ˈɛɪkʰwiɪs]
Aqua: [ˈakʰwə]

The only word I can think of that has /wæ/ in my English is "whack", and that's at least sort of onomatopoeia.