zompist bboard

Chibi wrote:

Theta wrote:Triangle is a mess of a word. [ʈʂɹa(j)æŋg.ʁ]

Mine's similar, except with [ɑ] instead of [a] and [ɫ] instead of [ʁ]...and the [j] is definitely there. And actually I think I have [tʃ]. So it's not actually that similar at all, IPA-wise

So [tʃɹɑjæŋgɫ̩]

I only write it [ʈʂ] to distinguish it from <ch> because they *are* articulated slightly differently. It's not actually retroflex.

^^ [t͡ɕ]?

I think that would be a good transcription but I usually just write it tS or the IPA equivalent.

Bob Johnson wrote:

Bedelato wrote:for me it produces a minimal pair barred /bɑɹd/ vs. bard /bʌɹd/

What do you have for <bird>?

Do <warrior> and <worrier> contrast? <war> and <were>? <far> and <for>?

Yeah, [bɻ̩ˠd], [wɔɻˤ], [wɻ̩ˠ], [fɑɻˤ], [fɔɻ̩] (unstressed [f͏ɻˠ]).

Bedelato wrote:[f͏ɻˠ]

What's that now?

[f͏ɻˠ]

Something seems strange here. And this time I'm pretty sure it's not me. Because all those blanks seem unnecessary...

Mr. Z wrote:Something seems strange here. And this time I'm pretty sure it's not me. Because all those blanks seem unnecessary...

what blanks

that's a labiodental fricative, and a velarized retroflex approximant

Bob Johnson wrote:

Mr. Z wrote:Something seems strange here. And this time I'm pretty sure it's not me. Because all those blanks seem unnecessary...

what blanks

that's a labiodental fricative, and a velarized retroflex approximant

I can see that, but what about those broken lines that form a square and a circle? You know, the ones that should have a real letter in their place.

Hmm, copying in Word is fine, but on board, there's funky stuff going on.

triangle: [tʃɻ̯aɪ.ŋ.ɡl] -- the [ɻ] in /tr/ /dr/ seems shorter than in, say, <rain>. No [æ] here unless I'm being really careful.

I'm not sure whether the /tr/~/tʃ/ contrast is disappearing, but these four are clear enough:
dane [d̥eɪn]
drain [dʒɻeɪn]
Jane [dʒeɪn]
Dwayne [dweɪn]

(Twain is [tʰʷʍ̯eɪn] amusingly enough (to me at least))

Mr. Z wrote:I can see that, but what about those broken lines that form a square and a circle? You know, the ones that should have a real letter in their place.

Your font and/or browser don't properly support combining characters. Those are placeholders from the sup-gamma probably.

Bob Johnson wrote:triangle: [tʃɻ̯aɪ.ŋ.ɡl] -- the [ɻ] in /tr/ /dr/ seems shorter than in, say, <rain>. No [æ] here unless I'm being really careful.

I'm not sure whether the /tr/~/tʃ/ contrast is disappearing, but these four are clear enough:
dane [d̥eɪn]
drain [dʒɻeɪn]
Jane [dʒeɪn]
Dwayne [dweɪn]

(Twain is [tʰʷʍ̯eɪn] amusingly enough (to me at least))

Mr. Z wrote:I can see that, but what about those broken lines that form a square and a circle? You know, the ones that should have a real letter in their place.

Your font and/or browser don't properly support combining characters. Those are placeholders from the sup-gamma probably.

Well, all the other combining characters work perfectly well for me. It's just this one.

Risla wrote:I'd like to know how people pronounce 'triangle,' as I seem to be unable to nail down the IPA for how I pronounce it. I'd also like to know how people pronounce 'begin,' 'began' and 'begun'. I had another thing to ask about but I forgot it.

[ʧʰɹˤaɪ̯.ŋ̩.ɡɫ̩]
[b̥ɡ̥ɪn]
[b̥ɡ̥ɛə̯n]
[b̥ɡ̥ʌn]

I came across the word 'eliminable' in a paper lately. How do you pronounce it? I'm not native, but my guess would be:

[iˈlɪmənəbɫ̠]
(actually, I forgot the proper diacritic for syllabic consonants, but oh well)

Not /i/, but schwa or /ɪ/ again.

I have it as [əɫɨmɨ̃ɾəbʁ̩ ], n lenites similarly to other alveolars except it nasalizes the preceding vowel. [ʁ] is final /l/ in my speech, although it could be pre-uvular or velar or something.

Theta wrote:I have it as [əɫɨmɨ̃ɾəbʁ̩ ], n lenites similarly to other alveolars except it nasalizes the preceding vowel.

Whow, that's fun, I need to remember that for some sound change in a conlang.

Astraios wrote:Not /i/, but schwa or /ɪ/ again.

IMD it's schwa or /i/ ... /ɪ/ can't exist in stressless syllables. For example, the "e" in "before" is either schwa or /i/. I generally use the schwa.

Bedelato wrote:Yeah, [bɻ̩ˠd], [wɔɻˤ], [wɻ̩ˠ], [fɑɻˤ], [fɔɻ̩] (unstressed [f͏ɻˠ]).

For the last one, is there any reason why you used U+034F COMBINING GRAPHEME JOINER? That's mostly useful for collation purposes, and you're hardly collating anything. -_-

quiet
quite

Quiet: [kʷʰajɨʔ]
Quite: [kʷʰaɪ̯ʔ]

[kʰʍɑjəʔ]~[kʰʍɑjɪʔ]
[kʰʍæiʔ]~[kʰʍʌiʔ]

ok i may be slightly bullshitting with [kʰʍ] but there's voicelessness spreading because of the aspiration and stuff so it's somewhere between that and [kʰw] and who knows about [kʷʰ] but I don't think it's truly that at least for me.

and the [ʔ] varies with [tʼ] and some other /t/ allophones depending on how slowly i pronounce it.

Bedelato wrote:

Bob Johnson wrote:

Bedelato wrote:for me it produces a minimal pair barred /bɑɹd/ vs. bard /bʌɹd/

What do you have for <bird>?

Do <warrior> and <worrier> contrast? <war> and <were>? <far> and <for>?

Yeah, [bɻ̩ˠd], [wɔɻˤ], [wɻ̩ˠ], [fɑɻˤ], [fɔɻ̩] (unstressed [f͏ɻˠ]).

[f͏ɻˠ]? Huh. Who knew Zalgo was a language nerd?

quiet: [kʰʷəːɪʕ] or [kʰʷɑɪjɪt]
quite: [kʰʷəɪt]

Nate wrote: quiet: [kʰʷəːɪʕ] or [kʰʷɑɪjɪt]

I believe you have a typo here. /ʕ/ is the pharyngeal approximant/fricative, and here you must be trying to transcribe the glottal stop, which is written /ʔ/. They're very close in appearance, but sound vastly different so it's a bad thing to get them confused.

Theta wrote:

Nate wrote: quiet: [kʰʷəːɪʕ] or [kʰʷɑɪjɪt]

I believe you have a typo here. /ʕ/ is the pharyngeal approximant/fricative, and here you must be trying to transcribe the glottal stop, which is written /ʔ/. They're very close in appearance, but sound vastly different so it's a bad thing to get them confused.

I knew I'd make a mistake. Thanks for the correction. I'll keep it in mind. ^^;

quiet: /ˈkwae̯ɪt/ > [ˈkʰwae̯ɨʔ]
quite: /ˈkwəe̯t/ > [ˈkʰwə̆ĕ̯ʔ]

About the cluster /kw/, I close to simply represent it as [kʰw], as the light devoicing of the /w/ is readily implicit here, whereas marking it as [kʰʍ] specifies that a significant degree of frication is present which is not so. This /kw/ clearly contrasts with, say, my (and many others') /kl/, in which a marked degree of velar frication is present, e.g. my [kʰxʟ̞] or [kʰxɰ] therefor.

And of course I do have a moderate degree of allophony of the final /t/ in each of these, like how finlay mentioned; I just figure that is understood by anyone familiar with English phonology, and considering that the [ʔ] realization is most common in my dialect, I decided to default to that.

Nate wrote:quiet: [kʰʷəːɪʕ] or [kʰʷɑɪjɪt]
quite: [kʰʷəɪt]

Aha! I knew somebody had to (mostly) merge them, I've seen far too many mixups in writing.

For me it's
<quite> /kwaɪt/ one syllable
<quiet> /kwaɪ.Vt/ two where V is either /ɪ/ or /ə/, they wouldn't contrast there anyway
also with the predictable final /t/~[t]~[ʔ] stuff
hmm, that /kw/ can surface as anything from [kʷʰʍ] to [kw], seems free variation