zompist bboard

It is interesting that you often affricate /t/ before /ər/ even when no syncope takes place, especially since, IIRC, you are a non-native speaker of English, and to my knowledge no standard variety of English has this.

Travis B. wrote:It is interesting that you often affricate /t/ before /ər/ even when no syncope takes place, especially since, IIRC, you are a non-native speaker of English, and to my knowledge no standard variety of English has this.

Well, if the /ər/ is realized as a rhotic vowel (and apparently it is), it's no wonder the preceding /t/ assimilates to that.

Pole, the wrote:

Travis B. wrote:It is interesting that you often affricate /t/ before /ər/ even when no syncope takes place, especially since, IIRC, you are a non-native speaker of English, and to my knowledge no standard variety of English has this.

Well, if the /ər/ is realized as a rhotic vowel (and apparently it is), it's no wonder the preceding /t/ assimilates to that.

Yes, but in less conservative but standard NAE /tər/ and /dər/ still do not affricate or palatalize, only /tr/ and /dr/ affricate and palatalize. (More conservative NAE does not affricate /tr/ or /dr/, or affricates them as retroflex rather than palatoalveolar.)

I didn't know where to put this, but one anecdote from my work was in a group of a bunch of people I said Rio, the name of the project I am working on, pronounced as [ˈʁʷiːo(ː)] several times, and every single time the people in the group all thought I was saying real, indicating that they all heard it as l-vocalization.

OMFG, I've just watched gen. McMaster speak and apparently he unironically says 'America' as [ə̆'mɚkə], wtf!? I'd always thought Merka was an invented spelling used to mock hurr-durr type of patriots and I had never actually heard it before.

Io wrote:OMFG, I've just watched gen. McMaster speak and apparently he unironically says 'America' as [ə̆'mɚkə], wtf!? I'd always thought Merka was an invented spelling used to mock hurr-durr type of patriots and I had never actually heard it before.

In fast, casual conversation it's not uncommon for me to say something like [ə̆'mɚɨkə].

Io wrote:OMFG, I've just watched gen. McMaster speak and apparently he unironically says 'America' as [ə̆'mɚkə], wtf!? I'd always thought Merka was an invented spelling used to mock hurr-durr type of patriots and I had never actually heard it before.

It could be related to what Wikipedia describes as the "merry-Murray merger" that was historically a feature of accents in some regions like Philadelphia. Or it might just be an unrelated example of the common process of irregular shortenings and simplifications in commonly used place-names.

Travis B. wrote:It is interesting that you often affricate /t/ before /ər/ even when no syncope takes place, especially since, IIRC, you are a non-native speaker of English, and to my knowledge no standard variety of English has this.

Travis B. wrote:

Pole, the wrote:

Travis B. wrote:It is interesting that you often affricate /t/ before /ər/ even when no syncope takes place, especially since, IIRC, you are a non-native speaker of English, and to my knowledge no standard variety of English has this.

Well, if the /ər/ is realized as a rhotic vowel (and apparently it is), it's no wonder the preceding /t/ assimilates to that.

Yes, but in less conservative but standard NAE /tər/ and /dər/ still do not affricate or palatalize, only /tr/ and /dr/ affricate and palatalize. (More conservative NAE does not affricate /tr/ or /dr/, or affricates them as retroflex rather than palatoalveolar.)

Maybe the most accurate way of describing it would be, for example, [ˈsɪs.tʰɹ̥ɚ]. That is, the [t] releases directly into a first voiceless, then voiced, rhothic vowel and the placement of the tongue produces an ever so slight hissing noise after the release.

gallant

Where's the stress? And does it vary according to syntax, semantics, or both?

Io wrote:OMFG, I've just watched gen. McMaster speak and apparently he unironically says 'America' as [ə̆'mɚkə], wtf!? I'd always thought Merka was an invented spelling used to mock hurr-durr type of patriots and I had never actually heard it before.

Loss of schwa after /r/ is commonplace in the US, as I understand it - c.f. Bush's distinction between "merkins" and "tourists".

linguoboy wrote:gallant

Where's the stress? And does it vary according to syntax, semantics, or both?

It varies according to semantics and possibly pragmatics.

The era and things associated with it are stressed on the second syllable (and often spelled differently). The chivalrous behaviour is typically stressed on the first syllable. However, if I were being particularly mocking (affectionately or otherwise), or old-fashioned, or... ornate... then I'd stress the second syllable. Whether this is a pragmatic change (indicating a more playful register) or a semantic one (referring to a slighty different, more archaic and incongruous set of behaviours) is something I'm not really sure of, off the top of my head.
I suppose, to put it in specifics, i'd be more likely to stress the final syllable if I were talking about a man being ostentatiously chivalrous to a woman, particularly with romantic intentions, while I'd be more likely to stress the initial syllable if I were talking about someone being, say, brave (possibly there's contamination here with the noun, gallantry, which is usually about couragous action). But again, since I'd be talking about, say, someone opening a door for a woman, on the one hand, and someone charging a machine gun, on the other, in typically very different circumstances, I'm not sure to what extent that's semantic and how much is pragmatic.
I'd also probably stress the second syllable if I were using it to mean 'foppish', but again, since that would be mocking it may be pragmatic.

Likewise, the noun for a person is usually initial stress, but could be second if i were talking about a fop or a lech or the like.

The sail I would pronounce with initial stress, but I'm not sure I've ever actually said it outloud.

Salmoneus wrote:Loss of schwa after /r/ is commonplace in the US, as I understand it - c.f. Bush's distinction between "merkins" and "tourists".

It wasn't uncommon back in 1950s either — when Stanisław Lem wrote the (later auto-apocryphal) “Twenty-Sixth Voyage”, parodying the US as „Merka” (and also New York as „Niuouk” and the A-bomb as „Ejbom”).

I always pronounce gallant on the first syllable; and to me it is only an adjective.

Salmoneus wrote:Loss of schwa after /r/ is commonplace in the US, as I understand it - c.f. Bush's distinction between "merkins" and "tourists".

Speaking of which, temp'rature or temper'ture?

linguoboy wrote:gallant

Where's the stress? And does it vary according to syntax, semantics, or both?

For me gallant is always stressed on the second-syllable, probably because I was habitually corrected for stressing the initial syllable...

linguoboy wrote:

Salmoneus wrote:Loss of schwa after /r/ is commonplace in the US, as I understand it - c.f. Bush's distinction between "merkins" and "tourists".

Speaking of which, temp'rature or temper'ture?

temper'ture

linguoboy wrote:

Salmoneus wrote:Loss of schwa after /r/ is commonplace in the US, as I understand it - c.f. Bush's distinction between "merkins" and "tourists".

Speaking of which, temp'rature or temper'ture?

The former. The latter sounds really bizarre ('tempacha') - probably because losing the second schwa would mean losing the /r/ entirely for me.

I have temp'rature. I also have /frə/ for the prefix for- in informal speech.

Travis B. wrote:I have temp'rature. I also have /frə/ for the prefix for- in informal speech.

What do you have for these then?
forget
forgotten
forgive
forgave
forsake
forsook
forbid
forbade
forcast
fret
forlorn

For myself:
forget [fə'gɛt̚]
forgot [fə'gɔt̚]
forgive [fə'gɪv]
forgave [fə'gɛɪ̯v]
forsake [fə'sɛɪ̯k]
forsook [fə'sʊk]
forbid [fə'bɪd̚]
forbade [fə'bɛɪ̯d̚]
fret [fɻɛt̚]
forlorn [fəlõːn]
for Pete's sake [fə pʰɪi̯t‿sɛɪ̯k]

I have [ɚ] in all those cases (perhaps better represented as [ɻ] in the case of fret).

The only interesting variation I have is the vowel /o/ in the first syllable of forlorn and optionally in forms of forsake. Those words belong to a formal register for me, so reducing the first vowel sounds odd (and with forlorn, actually incorrect).

(BTW, you dropped forcast [sic] from your list. I'm assuming you have initial stress and a full vowel there, just as I do?)

forget [fʁəːˈgɜʔ]
forgotten [fʁəːˈgaʔn̩(ː)]
forgive [fʁəːˈgɘːf]
forgave [fʁəːˈgeːf]
forsake [fɔʁˈseʔk]
forsook [fɔʁˈsʲʉ̯ʊʔk]
forbid [fʁəːˈbɘːt]
forbade [fʁəːˈbeːt]
forbidden [fʁəːˈbɘːnː~fʁəːˈbɘːːn]
forecast [ˌfɔʁˈkʰɛsʲtʲ]
fret [fʁɜʔ]
forlorn [fɔːʁˈʟ̞ɔ̃(ː)ʁ̃(n)~fɔːʁˈɰɔ̃(ː)ʁ̃(n)]

"cishet"

cishet: [ˈsɘsˌhɜʔ], followed by a vowel [ˈsɘsˌhɜɾ].

/sɪsˈhɛʔ/ I think, although I've written it significantly more than I've spoken it. I definitely stress the last syllable, but I'm not sure why.

linguoboy wrote:"cishet"

[junəkɚn]

Word-Initially, just not in Xylophone: /z/ (Ex: [zinofobia])
Intervocallically and Unstressed: /gz/ (Ex. [ɤgzampl])
None of the above: /ks/ (Ex. [eks])

wait...