zompist bboard

Mr. Z wrote:Umega, Drydic Guy, please don't turn this thread into a flaming war.

so what's the next word we have to pronounce,

anyways just apologizing for all the childish shit i ever did

Okay then, how do you pronounce "home"? (Both the place where one lives, and as in homing missile)

I [hoʊm] in on my [hɔʟm].

(I'm not entirely sure what vowel is in the second, but it's not the same as the first. I think it's somewhere in between [o] and [ɔ]...)

you do what now? i will need to see proof of [ʟ]. it's different from [ɫ] without alveolar contact.

also why on earth do you think you pronounce the two differently?

home (verb): [ˈho(ː)m]
home (noun): [ˈho(ː)m] or sometimes, particularly when less stressed in informal speech, [ˈo(ː)m]

edit: How about 'because'? I've heard both /ʌ/ and /ɔ/ there.

finlay wrote:you do what now? i will need to see proof of [ʟ]. it's different from [ɫ] without alveolar contact.

I'm guessing he's referring to that weird intrusive-l thing that occasionally appears in words like 'both'. I think it only appears after /o/, though, so maybe it's just a split: historical /o/ usually becomes /əu̯/, but occasionally becomes something like /oˤ/.

I hadn't known about that intrusive L thing until a couple days ago when I was listening to this video with this guy from Chicago in it and he was saying both like [bɔʟθ]. I wonder if it's common in that area for that kind of thing to happen.

Anywayy, I pronounce home [hɵːm] usually, but if I'm saying it like "I didn't go to the store, I went home." then it's [hoʊm]

Theta wrote:I hadn't known about that intrusive L thing until a couple days ago when I was listening to this video with this guy from Chicago in it and he was saying both like [bɔʟθ]. I wonder if it's common in that area for that kind of thing to happen.

I have heard of people out by the West Coast who do that, actually, but I had never heard of that being found in Chicago before.

Lyhoko Leaci wrote:Okay then, how do you pronounce "home"? (Both the place where one lives, and as in homing missile)

I [hoʊm] in on my [hɔʟm].

(I'm not entirely sure what vowel is in the second, but it's not the same as the first. I think it's somewhere in between [o] and [ɔ]...)

[hoːm]

Nortaneous wrote:edit: How about 'because'? I've heard both /ʌ/ and /ɔ/ there.

finlay wrote:you do what now? i will need to see proof of [ʟ]. it's different from [ɫ] without alveolar contact.

I'm guessing he's referring to that weird intrusive-l thing that occasionally appears in words like 'both'. I think it only appears after /o/, though, so maybe it's just a split: historical /o/ usually becomes /əu̯/, but occasionally becomes something like /oˤ/.

Interesting, I have an intrusive L in "Both"

[b̥oɫ̞θ]

How is b̥ different from p?

/ˈkloʊsəɹ, ˈkjuːnjɪfɔːɹm, ˈhɛəɹ, ˈhɜːɹ, ˈɛəɹ, ˈhoʊm, ˈboʊθ/ [ˈkʰɫ̥ö̞̜ʊsɰ̹̩˞, ˈk͡xʰjʉu̯ȵjɪ̞ˌfo̞ɰ̹˞m, ˈhe̞ɛ̯̈ɰ̹˞, ˈhˠɰ̹̩˞ˑ, ˈɛɛ̯̈ɰ̹˞, ˈhö̞̜ʊm, ˈbö̞̜ʊθ]. Don't Travicize me, this is completely true, this is the closest I can get to the x-canIPA (the limit of transcriptin, I believe, to go any further would mean having a different system for every mouth).

Nortaneous wrote:edit: How about 'because'? I've heard both /ʌ/ and /ɔ/ there.

finlay wrote:you do what now? i will need to see proof of [ʟ]. it's different from [ɫ] without alveolar contact.

I'm guessing he's referring to that weird intrusive-l thing that occasionally appears in words like 'both'. I think it only appears after /o/, though, so maybe it's just a split: historical /o/ usually becomes /əu̯/, but occasionally becomes something like /oˤ/.

Does intrusive l actually occur before labials? I've encountered people who have it before (generally in /boT/ -> [bolT]), but haven't really seen much analysis of it, and had always assumed it was the off glide on the /o/ assimilating in place of articulation to the following consonant (generally an alveolar or dental).

My sister does the intrusive-L thing. I know for certain in the word "both", and probably others. I have [ʟ] for /l/ lots, in fact I don't think I ever have [l] for /l/, it's always velarized.

Actually my "[ʟ]" might be more uvular or even pharyngeal. Not sure, it's hard for me to tell so far back there.

Aiďos wrote:/ˈkloʊsəɹ, ˈkjuːnjɪfɔːɹm, ˈhɛəɹ, ˈhɜːɹ, ˈɛəɹ, ˈhoʊm, ˈboʊθ/ [ˈkʰɫ̥ö̞̜ʊsɰ̹̩˞, ˈk͡xʰjʉu̯ȵjɪ̞ˌfo̞ɰ̹˞m, ˈhe̞ɛ̯̈ɰ̹˞, ˈhˠɰ̹̩˞ˑ, ˈɛɛ̯̈ɰ̹˞, ˈhö̞̜ʊm, ˈbö̞̜ʊθ]. Don't Travicize me, this is completely true, this is the closest I can get to the x-canIPA (the limit of transcriptin, I believe, to go any further would mean having a different system for every mouth).

Dude, the problem is a. that this level of detail is rarely ever appropriate, even on a thread like this, since you're implying that you never pronounce these words any differently to this... and yet these are strictly the way that you pronounce them in isolation over and over... and b. that canIPA is a load of bullshit, but that's kinda by the wayside. It's not that I don't necessarily believe what you write.

Zumir wrote:How is b̥ different from p?

The degree of unvoicing, b̥ is sort of halfway voiced if that makes any sense.

I also never have [l] for /l/, most of the time it's [ɫ] but in words like 'milk' it'll lose coronal articulation entirely and become [mɪɰk].

Theta wrote:

Zumir wrote:How is b̥ different from p?

The degree of unvoicing, b̥ is sort of halfway voiced if that makes any sense.

Well, properly, no. Actually the difference is this: [b̥] is voiceless lenis while [p] is voiceless fortis.

Now, what does this actually mean?

and [p], despite how people often seem to think of them, are not actually a pair of phones that only differ by voicing. Rather there are a range of other phonetic features associated with the two, such as length, nature of release, and so on that can be broadly grouped into two categories typically named lenis and fortis respectively.

Hence [b̥] is a phone that is phonetically like except that it is voiceless like [p].

(All of the above applies for other plosive triplets like [d], [d̥], and [t]; [dz], [d̥z̥], and [ts]; [dʒ], [d̥ʒ̊], and [tʃ]; and [ɡ], [ɡ̊] and [k] as well.)

Edit: Actually, I should note that this also applies to other obstruents as well, but it is most clear-cut and obvious with plosives.

Theta wrote:I also never have [l] for /l/, most of the time it's [ɫ] but in words like 'milk' it'll lose coronal articulation entirely and become [mɪɰk].

This sort of thing is actually extremely common in North American English varieties, it seems, despite that the usual descriptions of the likes of General American lack this.

finlay wrote:

Aiďos wrote:/ˈkloʊsəɹ, ˈkjuːnjɪfɔːɹm, ˈhɛəɹ, ˈhɜːɹ, ˈɛəɹ, ˈhoʊm, ˈboʊθ/ [ˈkʰɫ̥ö̞̜ʊsɰ̹̩˞, ˈk͡xʰjʉu̯ȵjɪ̞ˌfo̞ɰ̹˞m, ˈhe̞ɛ̯̈ɰ̹˞, ˈhˠɰ̹̩˞ˑ, ˈɛɛ̯̈ɰ̹˞, ˈhö̞̜ʊm, ˈbö̞̜ʊθ]. Don't Travicize me, this is completely true, this is the closest I can get to the x-canIPA (the limit of transcriptin, I believe, to go any further would mean having a different system for every mouth).

Dude, the problem is a. that this level of detail is rarely ever appropriate, even on a thread like this, since you're implying that you never pronounce these words any differently to this... and yet these are strictly the way that you pronounce them in isolation over and over... and b. that canIPA is a load of bullshit, but that's kinda by the wayside. It's not that I don't necessarily believe what you write.

To be honest... that makes my transcriptions seem simple... and often when I mark things in a rather complex fashion it is because I am marking different features simultaneously (e.g. some POA adjustment combined with nasalization and maybe also with non-syllabicity) rather than trying to exactly specify the POA of individual phones canIPA-esque-ly...

okay how do yu pronounce this


1. X initially [X-]

2. Citizen

3. Front


1. X at the beginning of a word for me is usually reads /ks/ in my mind but i usually just use /z/ when speaking to other people.
depending on the word it can be /gz/, /ʃ/, /s/, /h/ , /zː/, or /ɛks/

in order of first to last mentioned

Xylophone
Xerox (english x=/z/)
Xerxes
Xiaolin
Xu
Xeer
Xoxe
X-axis


2. /'sɪd.ə'zɪn/

3. /'fɻʌnt/ , /'fɹʷʌnʈ/ uncareful speech or even /.fʌnː/ in really uncareful speech, the occurance me saying them goes in opposite order where i typed them

hair [hɛɚ]
her [hɘ˞ː]~[ɘ˞ː]~[ɚ]~[ə]
heir [ɛɚ]
home [hɞʉm]~[hœʉm]~[hœːm]
both [bɞʉθ]~[bœʉθ]~[bœːθ]
milk [mɪo̯k]

Umega wrote:okay how do yu pronounce this
1. X-
...
X- for me is usually reads /ks/ in my mind but i usually just use /z/ when speaking to other people.
depending on the word it can be /gz/, /ʃ/, /s/, /h/ , /zː/, or /ɛks/

in order of first to last mentioned
Xylophone
Xerox (english x=/z/)
Xerxes
Xiaolin
Xu
Xeer
Xoxe
X-axis

This makes as little sense as the reason you exist.

i edited it check again or atleast respond

Great, now everything is clearer!

I don't think any of the things you suggested really have any variation at all, Umega.

maybe the last one won't

@Travis B.: Thanks for clearing that up.