Words you love because of their sounds

[ol bofosh]

Abhorrent and abhore. I like those too. Not so much abhorrence though.

[Imralu]

[ˈed̚n̩bɹɐ] ... I'm sorry, I'm just not able to say [ɪ] in unstressed syllables when I'm speaking English. It's a schwa, and when that's between /d/ or /t/ and /n/ it just makes the /n/ syllabic.

Australians also butcher American place names ...

[äːkənsoː] ... I don't know why we don't say [äːkənsäː] because it's closer to the American pronunciation, but that [ɑː] or [ɒː] sound in American English usually corresponds to [oː] here.

[lʉː(w)iːziˈænɐ]

[njʉː(w)oːˈliːnz]

[ɐʉˈhɑe(j)ɐʉ]

... but they get us back.

[ˈbrɪsˌbeɪn]

[ˈmɛlˌbɔːɹn]

[kʰɛɹnz]

[dɑːɹwɪn]

[ˈnuːˌkæːsəʟ]

[ɑːˈstɹeɪliə]

[Whimemsz]

[lʉː(w)iːziˈænɐ]
[ɐʉˈhɑe(j)ɐʉ]

How's are these wrong? They're correct pronunciations spoken with an Australian accent.

[njʉː(w)oːˈliːnz]

I've heard a number of Americans say the GA equivalent of this (i.e., something like /ˌnuwoɹˈlinz/).....though obviously that's only crazy people

[ˈbrɪsˌbeɪn]

I don't know if that's what you meant to write, but I've only heard [ˈbɹɪzˌbeɪn], with a [z]



[Incidentally, not that this is all that major, but a lot of people here in Texas at least refer to the town of Concord, Mass. (as in the Battle of Lexington and Concord) as /ˈkɑnˌkoɹd/ (homophonous with the name of the plane). I don't know if people elsewhere say it that way too, but as someone who grew up in that area I can assure everyone that it is in fact /ˈkɑŋkɚd/ (not sure how to transcribe that in a New England accent, but anyway, homophonous with "conquered")]

[Ziz]

[dɑːɹwɪn]

[ˈnuːˌkæːsəʟ]

[ɑːˈstɹeɪliə]

How are we supposed to say these last three?

~~

Anyhow, my new favorite word is besmirched.

[Imralu]

[lʉː(w)iːziˈænɐ]
[ɐʉˈhɑe(j)ɐʉ]

How's are these wrong? They're correct pronunciations spoken with an Australian accent.

I thought Louisiana was supposed to be pronounced like "Loosiana" ...

[njʉː(w)oːˈliːnz]

I've heard a number of Americans say the GA equivalent of this (i.e., something like /ˌnuwoɹˈlinz/).....though obviously that's only crazy people

I thought it was supposed to be /nu(w)ˈoɹlɪnz/. Is that how the non-crazies say it?

[ˈbrɪsˌbeɪn]

I don't know if that's what you meant to write, but I've only heard [ˈbɹɪzˌbeɪn], with a [z]

I've definitely heard it with /s/, but even with /z/, what you gave is "incorrect." We say [ˈbrɪzbən]. [ˈbɹɪzˌbeɪn] is in California. We like schwas over here. And Melbourne is [ˈmelbən]

[dɑːɹwɪn]

[ˈnuːˌkæːsəʟ]

[ɑːˈstɹeɪliə]

How are we supposed to say these last three?

I'm just stirring, really, but we say them as

[däːwən] [ˈnjʉːˌkʰäːsəʟ] [əˈstɹæɪljɐ]

If the [g] in <Edinburgh> is an "incorrect spelling pronunciation", then the [ɪ] in Darwin is too, because we have a schwa. Pronouncing it with any kind of i-vowel is a spelling pronunciation.

As for Australia, well, if the first syllable is not a schwa, it sounds like you're pronouncing it very pedantically. For us, anyway. And here, it's with [ɔ], if not a schwa, which is the equivalent of the RP /ɒ/ ... yeah, I'm aware that a lot of American dialects merge the RP /ɑː/ /ɒ/ /ɔː/. I'm just playing devils advocate, and to rile up Finlay (while playfully tousling his hair).

Just curious, though. How do you pronounce "Aussie". Most Americans say it as [ˈɑːsi] which just sounds so wrong ... it's pronounced with /z/, not /s/. However you pronounce "Ozzy" (as in Osborne) is how it should be. Australia is often shortened to Aus, pronounced (and sometimes spelt) as in the land of Oz. We say [ˈɔzi]. [ˈɑːsi] sounds to us like "arsey".

I do like that the way Americans say "autistic" is very like the way we say "artistic".

I like besmirched too. And hypotenuse and ambiguities.

[Bob Johnson]

[njʉː(w)oːˈliːnz]

[ˈnɔː.l(ə)nz]
okay not really, my grandfather was from near Nawlins but I'm too boring

Edit: <Aussie> [ɔ(ː).si] I guess? no cot-caught merger obviously

[Ziz]

[lʉː(w)iːziˈænɐ]
[ɐʉˈhɑe(j)ɐʉ]

How's are these wrong? They're correct pronunciations spoken with an Australian accent.

I thought Louisiana was supposed to be pronounced like "Loosiana" ...

Haha. Not by normal people.

[njʉː(w)oːˈliːnz]

I've heard a number of Americans say the GA equivalent of this (i.e., something like /ˌnuwoɹˈlinz/).....though obviously that's only crazy people

I thought it was supposed to be /nu(w)ˈoɹlɪnz/. Is that how the non-crazies say it?

Yes.

Just curious, though. How do you pronounce "Aussie". Most Americans say it as [ˈɑːsi] which just sounds so wrong ... it's pronounced with /z/, not /s/. However you pronounce "Ozzy" (as in Osborne) is how it should be. Australia is often shortened to Aus, pronounced (and sometimes spelt) as in the land of Oz. We say [ˈɔzi]. [ˈɑːsi] sounds to us like "arsey".

I do like that the way Americans say "autistic" is very like the way we say "artistic".

I like besmirched too. And hypotenuse and ambiguities.

I think most people would say it with an [s] instead of [z], unless they've learned that it's supposed to be the other way around. We have a brand of shampoo called "Aussie," though, so maybe people have learnt to say right from commercials for it.

[Imralu]

We have a brand of shampoo called "Aussie," though, so maybe people have learnt to say right from commercials for it.

Lol, what? Are we famous for our fantastic hair?

[Drydic]

We have a brand of shampoo called "Aussie," though, so maybe people have learnt to say right from commercials for it.

Lol, what? Are we famous for our fantastic hair?

Its symbol is a running kangaroo.

[ol bofosh]

Ooh, those are good words. I quite like ambiguous.

And I say Aussie as [ˈɔzi] (or maybe [ˈɔzi:]?), nothing like the French aussi or anything like that

[finlay]

[ˈed̚n̩bɹɐ] ... I'm sorry, I'm just not able to say [ɪ] in unstressed syllables when I'm speaking English. It's a schwa, and when that's between /d/ or /t/ and /n/ it just makes the /n/ syllabic.

.... what? that's not the point of contention... and wouldn't be noticed; I'm not even sure it's strictly speaking [ɪ] for me anyway, because it's unstressed and bla. (it's a natural part of the australian accent, anyway, rather than being systematically wrong/different)

Like even then, I'm completely leaving out the [nb] place assimilation that makes most people pronounce it [mb] when speaking quickly... it's not that bit that's in contention. A more accurate phonetic transcription for me might be between [ˈɛdm̩bə̆ɻɐ] or [ˈɛdm̩bɻʌ]. the point is it's not /bərg/.

[lctrgzmn]

I really like the perfective form of the verb "to shower" in Czech, osprchovat [ˈospr̩xovat]. I mean, the imperfective sprchovat [ˈspr̩xovat] sounds fine too, but to me there's just something about the fact that the syllabic [r] immediately precedes a stressed syllable and is still... well, syllabic. I also like "zdířka" [ˈzɟiːr̝̥ka] and the Icelandic word "stjörnum" [stjœr(t)nʏm].

[derkins]

I do like that the way Americans say "autistic" is very like the way we say "artistic".

This American loves it, too.

How do people here pronounce <Colorado> and <Nevada>? I have /kɑləˈɹædoʊ ~ kɑlɚˈædoʊ ~ kɑlˈɹædoʊ/ and /nəˈvædə/. It sounds wrong to me when people have /ɑ/ in the stressed syllables.

[Travis B.]

[lʉː(w)iːziˈænɐ]
[ɐʉˈhɑe(j)ɐʉ]

How's are these wrong? They're correct pronunciations spoken with an Australian accent.

I thought Louisiana was supposed to be pronounced like "Loosiana" ...

Ah, that depends on the dialect.

My own, for instance, has /luˌwiziˈɛnə/ > [ʟ̞uːˌwiːˈzjɛ̌ːnə(ː)]~[ɰuːˌwiːˈzjɛ̌ːnə(ː)]~[ʟ̞əːˌwiːˈzjɛ̌ːnə(ː)]~[ɰəːˌwiːˈzjɛ̌ːnə(ː)].

I could always say /luziˈɛnə/ > [ʟ̞uːˈzjɛ̌ːnə(ː)]~[ɰuːˈzjɛ̌ːnə(ː)], but that simply is not used in my dialect.

(Disclaimer: my pronunciations here do not reflect General American pronunciation, as they are in a rather atypical Inland North dialect; however, beyond the exact surface forms they do not underlyingly differ all that much from typical North American English pronunciations for these.)

[njʉː(w)oːˈliːnz]

I've heard a number of Americans say the GA equivalent of this (i.e., something like /ˌnuwoɹˈlinz/).....though obviously that's only crazy people

I thought it was supposed to be /nu(w)ˈoɹlɪnz/. Is that how the non-crazies say it?

I am used to the non-crazy way, in my dialect /ˌnuˈorlɪnz/ > [ˌn̻ʉ̯uˈɔːʁˤɰɨ̃ːnts]

However, I do know that there are NAE dialects out there that do use the crazy way. In my own dialect that would be /ˌnuˌorˈlinz/ > [ˌn̻ʉ̯uˌɔːʁˤˈʟ̞ĩːnts]~[ˌn̻ʉ̯uˌɔːʁˤˈɰĩːnts], but I am not used to this pronunciation actually being used therein,

[ˈbrɪsˌbeɪn]

I don't know if that's what you meant to write, but I've only heard [ˈbɹɪzˌbeɪn], with a [z]

I've definitely heard it with /s/, but even with /z/, what you gave is "incorrect." We say [ˈbrɪzbən]. [ˈbɹɪzˌbeɪn] is in California. We like schwas over here. And Melbourne is [ˈmelbən]

Sorry but still /ˈbrɪzˌben/ > [ˈb̥ɰˤɪːz̥ˌb̥ẽ(ː)n] and /ˈmɜlˌborn/ > [ˈmɜːɤ̯ˌb̥ɔ̃(ː)ʁ̃ˤn] here.

[dɑːɹwɪn]

[ˈnuːˌkæːsəʟ]

[ɑːˈstɹeɪliə]

How are we supposed to say these last three?

I'm just stirring, really, but we say them as

[däːwən] [ˈnjʉːˌkʰäːsəʟ] [əˈstɹæɪljɐ]

Here still /ˈdarwɪn/ > [ˈd̥ɑːʁˤwɨ̃(ː)n], /ˈnuˌkɛsəl/ > [ˈn̻ʉ̯̆ŭˌkʰɛsɯ̞(ː)], and /ɒˈstreljə/ > [ɒˈɕtɕɹ̠͡ɰˤeːɯ̞̯jə(ː)] (or in many idiolects [ɒˈstʂɹ͡ɰˤeːɯ̞̯jə(ː)])...

If the [g] in <Edinburgh> is an "incorrect spelling pronunciation", then the [ɪ] in Darwin is too, because we have a schwa. Pronouncing it with any kind of i-vowel is a spelling pronunciation.

Actually, very many NAE dialects, my own included, rearranged the distribution of historical /ɪ/ and /ə/ some, such that almost all cases of historical /ə/ before /n/ became /ɪ/, with almost all the exceptions being word or morpheme-initial. Hence I actually have to have /ɪn/, as my dialect simply does not have /ən/ in that position, at least when not forced.

As for Australia, well, if the first syllable is not a schwa, it sounds like you're pronouncing it very pedantically. For us, anyway. And here, it's with [ɔ], if not a schwa, which is the equivalent of the RP /ɒ/ ... yeah, I'm aware that a lot of American dialects merge the RP /ɑː/ /ɒ/ /ɔː/. I'm just playing devils advocate, and to rile up Finlay (while playfully tousling his hair).

You probably have noticed that, for their tendency to merge vowel phonemes, NAE dialects do tend strongly towards preserving "full" vowels in many positions where most other English dialects would reduce them...

Just curious, though. How do you pronounce "Aussie". Most Americans say it as [ˈɑːsi] which just sounds so wrong ... it's pronounced with /z/, not /s/. However you pronounce "Ozzy" (as in Osborne) is how it should be. Australia is often shortened to Aus, pronounced (and sometimes spelt) as in the land of Oz. We say [ˈɔzi]. [ˈɑːsi] sounds to us like "arsey".

Mind you, many Americans are not cot-caught-merged; I am used to /ˈɒsi/ > [ˈɒsi(ː)] for Aussie, while having /ˈazi/ > [ˈaːzi(ː)] for Ozzy (which is used solely here for referring to Ozzy Osbourne).

As for arsey, that would be /ˈarsi/ > [ˈɑʁˤs̻i(ː)]...

I do like that the way Americans say "autistic" is very like the way we say "artistic".

I would this does not apply to all Americans, as autistic here is /ɒˈtɪstɪk/ > [ɒˈtʰɪs̻t̻ɨʔk]~[ɒˈtʰɪs̻ːɨʔk].

For completeness's sake, artistic here is /ʌrˈtɪstɪk/ > [ʌʁˤˈtʰɪs̻t̻ɨʔk]~[ʌʁˤˈtʰɪs̻ːɨʔk].

I like besmirched too. And hypotenuse and ambiguities.

And just to cover all the examples, /biˈsmərtʃt/ > [b̥iˈs̻mʁ̩ˤtɕt̻], /həe̯ˈpatɪnus/ > [hə̆ĕ̯ˈpʰaʔn̻̍ːn̻ʉs], and /ˌɛmbɪˈɡjuwɪtiz/ > [ˌɛ̃ːmbɨːˈɡjuːwɨɾ̥iːs].

[Travis B.]

I do like that the way Americans say "autistic" is very like the way we say "artistic".

This American loves it, too.

How do people here pronounce <Colorado> and <Nevada>? I have /kɑləˈɹædoʊ ~ kɑlɚˈædoʊ ~ kɑlˈɹædoʊ/ and /nəˈvædə/. It sounds wrong to me when people have /ɑ/ in the stressed syllables.

I am used to /ˌkaləˈrɛdo/ > [ˌkʰaːɯ̞̯ʁ̍ˤːˈʁˤɛːɾo(ː)] for Colorado and /nəˈvɛdə/ > [nəːˈvɛːɾə(ː)] or /nɪˈvɛdə/ > [nɨːˈvɛːɾə(ː)] for Nevada

However, I do hear pronunciations which, in the phonology of my dialect, are /ˌkaləˈrado/ > [ˌkʰaːɯ̞̯ʁ̍ˤːˈʁˤɑːɾo(ː)] for Colorado and /nəˈvadə/ > [nəːˈvaːɾə(ː)] or /nɪˈvadə/ > [nɨːˈvaːɾə(ː)] for Nevada. However, these are not very natural-sounding in my dialect and sound annoyingly faux-Spanish to my ears (no offense to anyone).

[faiuwle]

My lect is probably more than a little influenced by the Spanish pronunciations, but I usually say /kɑləˈrɑdo/ or /koləˈrɑdo/, never with /æ/. Oddly, though, it's always /nəˈvædə/, never with /ɑ/, though I have heard that pronunciation before. And you often hear /nu.o˞ˈli:nz/, even though most people know the correct pronunciation is /nuˈo˞lɪnz/.

[Imralu]

[ˈbrɪsˌbeɪn]

I don't know if that's what you meant to write, but I've only heard [ˈbɹɪzˌbeɪn], with a [z]

I've definitely heard it with /s/, but even with /z/, what you gave is "incorrect." We say [ˈbrɪzbən]. [ˈbɹɪzˌbeɪn] is in California. We like schwas over here. And Melbourne is [ˈmelbən]

Sorry but still /ˈbrɪzˌben/ > [ˈb̥ɰˤɪːz̥ˌb̥ẽ(ː)n] and /ˈmɜlˌborn/ > [ˈmɜːɤ̯ˌb̥ɔ̃(ː)ʁ̃ˤn] here.

I wonder if Finlay would regard those as incorrect. I'd accept [ˈmɛlbɚn] for "Melbourne"

Actually, very many NAE dialects, my own included, rearranged the distribution of historical /ɪ/ and /ə/ some, such that almost all cases of historical /ə/ before /n/ became /ɪ/, with almost all the exceptions being word or morpheme-initial. Hence I actually have to have /ɪn/, as my dialect simply does not have /ən/ in that position, at least when not forced.

I didn't know that. Interesting! Is it possible for you to say Brisbane the way I do in your lect or is the closest [ˈbɹɪzbɪn]? [ˈbɹɪzbɪn] is still better than [ˈbɹɪzˌbe(ɪ)n]

You probably have noticed that, for their tendency to merge vowel phonemes, NAE dialects do tend strongly towards preserving "full" vowels in many positions where most other English dialects would reduce them...

Yeah, I have noticed that. We tend to go the other way. We tend to preserve as many vowel distinctions as possible. We have length distinction. We've created new vowels out of the collapsed rhotics. But in unstressed syllables, we prefer schwa. In syllables of the lowest stress level, only /i/ and /ə/ are possible.

Just curious, though. How do you pronounce "Aussie". Most Americans say it as [ˈɑːsi] which just sounds so wrong ... it's pronounced with /z/, not /s/. However you pronounce "Ozzy" (as in Osborne) is how it should be. Australia is often shortened to Aus, pronounced (and sometimes spelt) as in the land of Oz. We say [ˈɔzi]. [ˈɑːsi] sounds to us like "arsey".

Mind you, many Americans are not cot-caught-merged; I am used to /ˈɒsi/ > [ˈɒsi(ː)] for Aussie, while having /ˈazi/ > [ˈaːzi(ː)] for Ozzy (which is used solely here for referring to Ozzy Osbourne).

In spite of the spelling with <au>, Aussie has the cot vowel, not the caught vowel. It's a homophone of "Ozzy". Still, I don't think I'd notice which vowel you used ... it's the /s/ that sounds truly ridiculous in that word.

I do like that the way Americans say "autistic" is very like the way we say "artistic".

I would this does not apply to all Americans, as autistic here is /ɒˈtɪstɪk/ > [ɒˈtʰɪs̻t̻ɨʔk]~[ɒˈtʰɪs̻ːɨʔk].

Still closer to [äːˈtɪstɪk] than [oːˈtɪstɪk].

I like besmirched too. And hypotenuse and ambiguities.

And just to cover all the examples, /biˈsmərtʃt/ > [b̥iˈs̻mʁ̩ˤtɕt̻], /həe̯ˈpatɪnus/ > [hə̆ĕ̯ˈpʰaʔn̻̍ːn̻ʉs], and /ˌɛmbɪˈɡjuwɪtiz/ > [ˌɛ̃ːmbɪːˈɡjuːwɨɾ̥iːs].

[bəˈsmɜːtʃt]
[hɑe̯ˈpɔt̚n̩jʉːz]
[ˌæːmbəˈgjʉːwəɾiːz]

[Skomakar'n]

I've found a trend in Swedish words I like. Kedja. Midja. Vädja. Glädje. Tredje.

[ä]

oshi-
inb4 finlay

[finlay]

[ˈbrɪsˌbeɪn]

I don't know if that's what you meant to write, but I've only heard [ˈbɹɪzˌbeɪn], with a [z]

I've definitely heard it with /s/, but even with /z/, what you gave is "incorrect." We say [ˈbrɪzbən]. [ˈbɹɪzˌbeɪn] is in California. We like schwas over here. And Melbourne is [ˈmelbən]

Sorry but still /ˈbrɪzˌben/ > [ˈb̥ɰˤɪːz̥ˌb̥ẽ(ː)n] and /ˈmɜlˌborn/ > [ˈmɜːɤ̯ˌb̥ɔ̃(ː)ʁ̃ˤn] here.

I wonder if Finlay would regard those as incorrect. I'd accept [ˈmɛlbɚn] for "Melbourne"

not my city, don't care

kinda given up on ä too, except to post this link http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.com/2011/ ... means.html

[Imralu]

I will not use <ä> for phonemic transcriptions.

For phonetic, I will use <ä> because in Australian English [ä(:)] is the usual pronunciation of /a(:)/ while [a(:)] is a very broad, ocker, bogan accent, which I don't usually speak with. It's a useful distinction to make. My friends always laugh at our friend's mum's pronunciation. The catch phrase is [ˈget̚n̩̪ðəˈkʲaː weːgaːnːaˈmɪndən] ... which, with a normal Aussie accent would be more like: [ˈget̚n̩̪ðəˈkäː weːgɐwənəˈmɪndən]. A cookie for anyone who can write that out in English.

Off topic, I had a student from Spain who was incensed by the fact that I corrected him for speaking of "Roma" when talking about the capital of Italy. I told him that, in English, Roma is a small town 500km west of Brisbane, and the capital city of Italy is not Roma but Rome. He loudly exclaimed "English is stupid! You can't just change the name of the city ... its real name is Roma!" I asked him what the capital of England is and he replied with Londres.

Just recently, one of my colleagues had a student who yelled out angrily in class "Why I havi to spell Brazil with 'z'? Is cohect with 's'!"

[jmcd]

@finlay: Personally I think the part quoted in the 1949 IPA Principles booklet should be changed because it gives an inaccurate impression of the way languages are pronounced. I can perfectly understand leaving out diacritics and transcribing e~ɛ as e but acting as if /ɛ/ is actually /e/ is just too much homogenisation.

[Bob Johnson]

The catch phrase is [ˈget̚n̩̪ðəˈkʲaː weːgaːnːaˈmɪndən] ... which, with a normal Aussie accent would be more like: [ˈget̚n̩̪ðəˈkäː weːgɐwənəˈmɪndən]. A cookie for anyone who can write that out in English.

Get in the car, we're going to Minden?

[Travis B.]

[ˈbrɪsˌbeɪn]

I don't know if that's what you meant to write, but I've only heard [ˈbɹɪzˌbeɪn], with a [z]

I've definitely heard it with /s/, but even with /z/, what you gave is "incorrect." We say [ˈbrɪzbən]. [ˈbɹɪzˌbeɪn] is in California. We like schwas over here. And Melbourne is [ˈmelbən]

Sorry but still /ˈbrɪzˌben/ > [ˈb̥ɰˤɪːz̥ˌb̥ẽ(ː)n] and /ˈmɜlˌborn/ > [ˈmɜːɤ̯ˌb̥ɔ̃(ː)ʁ̃ˤn] here.

I wonder if Finlay would regard those as incorrect. I'd accept [ˈmɛlbɚn] for "Melbourne"

Here that would be /ˈmɜlbərn/ > [ˈmɜːɤ̯bʁ̩̃ˤ(ː)n], even though I have not really heard that pronunciation much in Real Life.

Actually, very many NAE dialects, my own included, rearranged the distribution of historical /ɪ/ and /ə/ some, such that almost all cases of historical /ə/ before /n/ became /ɪ/, with almost all the exceptions being word or morpheme-initial. Hence I actually have to have /ɪn/, as my dialect simply does not have /ən/ in that position, at least when not forced.

I didn't know that. Interesting! Is it possible for you to say Brisbane the way I do in your lect or is the closest [ˈbɹɪzbɪn]? [ˈbɹɪzbɪn] is still better than [ˈbɹɪzˌbe(ɪ)n]

Yeah, the closest I could get is /ˈbrɪzbɪn/ > [ˈb̥ɰˤɪːz̥b̥ɨ̃(ː)n]; compare with Lisbon /ˈlɪzbɪn/ > [ˈʟ̞ɪːz̥b̥ɨ̃(ː)n]~[ˈɰɪːz̥b̥ɨ̃(ː)n].

You probably have noticed that, for their tendency to merge vowel phonemes, NAE dialects do tend strongly towards preserving "full" vowels in many positions where most other English dialects would reduce them...

Yeah, I have noticed that. We tend to go the other way. We tend to preserve as many vowel distinctions as possible. We have length distinction. We've created new vowels out of the collapsed rhotics. But in unstressed syllables, we prefer schwa. In syllables of the lowest stress level, only /i/ and /ə/ are possible.

Some vowels do tend to attract secondary stress when they do not get reduced in NAE dialects, such as historical /eɪ̯/ (my /e/), but one cannot assume that a given consonant will not show up in any given position based upon stress. Even when vowel reduction does take place you will often find that words in NAE dialects have multiple forms in circulation, both with and without the reduction, which may be readily used alongside one another by the same speaker.

(Note that at least in my dialect, at some level every other syllable actually has stress of some sort, with few exceptions, even if it is not exactly marked in transcription; it seems that there are probably four levels of stress, including completely unstressed syllables, and that very many "unstressed" syllables actually have tertiary stress. The primary case where two completely unstressed syllables seem to be able to be adjacent are word-finally, if the two syllables are both unstressed affixes or in some grammatical forms, and in cases where they are separated by a morpheme boundary and each in turn is flanked by a stressed syllable. And while these tertiary stressed syllables may seem largely unapparent, they actually have very significant consequences phonologically, as the variation between them and unstressed syllables conditions the lack or presence, respectively, of intervocalic elision and lenition before them in very many places.

I have seen analyses of English having four levels of stress elsewhere, but at least for my own dialect, tertiary stressed syllables may have reduced vowel nuclei while unstressed syllables may have full vowel nuclei, whereas typically a four-level analysis equates unstressed full vowels with tertiary stress.)

Just curious, though. How do you pronounce "Aussie". Most Americans say it as [ˈɑːsi] which just sounds so wrong ... it's pronounced with /z/, not /s/. However you pronounce "Ozzy" (as in Osborne) is how it should be. Australia is often shortened to Aus, pronounced (and sometimes spelt) as in the land of Oz. We say [ˈɔzi]. [ˈɑːsi] sounds to us like "arsey".

Mind you, many Americans are not cot-caught-merged; I am used to /ˈɒsi/ > [ˈɒsi(ː)] for Aussie, while having /ˈazi/ > [ˈaːzi(ː)] for Ozzy (which is used solely here for referring to Ozzy Osbourne).

In spite of the spelling with <au>, Aussie has the cot vowel, not the caught vowel. It's a homophone of "Ozzy". Still, I don't think I'd notice which vowel you used ... it's the /s/ that sounds truly ridiculous in that word.

I know how you pronounce it myself; it is just basically derived from Australia(n) here, and hence is the very start of that plus the suffix -ie /i/ here.

I do like that the way Americans say "autistic" is very like the way we say "artistic".

I would this does not apply to all Americans, as autistic here is /ɒˈtɪstɪk/ > [ɒˈtʰɪs̻t̻ɨʔk]~[ɒˈtʰɪs̻ːɨʔk].

Still closer to [äːˈtɪstɪk] than [oːˈtɪstɪk].

Personally I actually intuitively perceive it as closer to the latter rather than the former; the backness plus rounding is more significant than the lowness to my ears.

Of course, then, my mom's dialect actually has an [a] versus [ɑ] contrast (except in some environments where the two are merged as [ɑ]), in the place of my dialect's [a] (and in some environments [ɑ]) versus [ɒ] contrast. My mom is always easily understandable, but her low vowels seem off if I pay attention to them, as I am used to rounding being distinctive and frontness/backness not being distinctive for low vowels, rather than the other way around...

[Shm Jay]

I just read the first volume of Otto Jespersen's grammar of English (Modern English grammar on historical principles) and he mentions something like ['ɛmbro] as the pronunciation of Edinburgh.

[zompist]

Some interesting stuff here— I never knew how Australians say "Melbourne" and "Australia". I'd say [ˈmɛɫ bɚn], [ɔs ˈtrel i jə]. (I hope I'm using ɚ correctly— it's the vowel in bird.)

I am used to /ˌkaləˈrɛdo/ > [ˌkʰaːɯ̞̯ʁ̍ˤːˈʁˤɛːɾo(ː)] for Colorado and /nəˈvɛdə/ > [nəːˈvɛːɾə(ː)] or /nɪˈvɛdə/ > [nɨːˈvɛːɾə(ː)] for Nevada

Huh, [ɛ] would sound weird to me in either word. I'd say [ka lɚ ˈæ ɾo], [nə ˈvæ ɾə].