zompist bboard

Does your American English dialect have phonemically nasal vowels as opposed to nasalised oral vowels? Some might think I'm crazy, but I swear that my Great Lakes accent has at least one distinctly phonemically nasal vowel, and maybe more. The best example I have is the word Month or [mO~T] as far as I can render it (my dialect has a backing of [V] and [O] and I believe it is nasal [O~] here). I also swear that Mint in my dialect is rendered [mI~t] ( is lower and backed here but there is no dinstinct symbol for it) but I may be wrong. If you live within the Inland North and you experience nasalisation in Mint, would you call a phonemically nasal vowel or a nasalised oral vowel?

Viktor77 wrote:phonemically

What are the minimal pairs? month~moth and mint~mitt?

Bob Johnson wrote:

Viktor77 wrote:phonemically

What are the minimal pairs? month~moth and mint~mitt?

Not Moth, no, that is [mAT]. I would guess they would have to be made up so Month and Muth being [mO~T] and [mOT], perhaps Stront and Strut [StSr\O~t] and [StSr/Ot].

Mint and Mitt is a fine minimal pair.

I'm almost certain the former is phonemically nasal. It's the latter where I'm afraid the distinction may not be phonemic.

Can you think of any examples of this occurrence when it doesn't appear before an alveolar consonant?

(FWIW, my "month" has [tθ] at the end, due to the underlying /n/, as far as I can tell, while "moth" only has [θ]...and the vowels are totally different anyway, with "month" having /ʌ/ and "moth" having /ɔ/ [ɔə̯])

Edit: appears you beat me tot he vowel point, but "strut" is [ɔ] for you? I thought that was the quintessential /ʌ/ word, so does your /ʌ/ become [ɔ]?

Chibi wrote:Can you think of any examples of this occurrence when it doesn't appear before an alveolar consonant?

(FWIW, my "month" has [tθ] at the end, due to the underlying /n/, as far as I can tell, while "moth" only has [θ]...and the vowels are totally different anyway, with "month" having /ʌ/ and "moth" having /ɔ/ [ɔə̯])

Edit: appears you beat me tot he vowel point, but "strut" is [ɔ] for you? I thought that was the quintessential /ʌ/ word, so does your /ʌ/ become [ɔ]?

My [V] is backed yes to [O]. That's a key feature of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift.

I agree, on very close examination Month has the while Moth is clearly the dental fricative alone without an aveolaire.

I definitely hear the nasalisation, and I would argue phonemically, before velars. Honk is [hA~k], I'm almost positive [A] isn't oral, though I could be over-analysing the nasality of my dialect. Hemp is nasal before a bilabial as [h3~p] but like Mint, I'm almost wondering if it isn't really phonemic here and the correct transcription would be [h3~mp] thus [mI~nt].

Chibi wrote:Can you think of any examples of this occurrence when it doesn't appear before an alveolar consonant?

No no. Viktor, disregard.

The relevant question here is, do you have these "phonemic" nasal vowels anywhere besides before nasals.

Do you see the common element between month and honk?

You nasal vowel is merely allophonic.

cromulant wrote:The relevant question here is, do you have these "phonemic" nasal vowels anywhere besides before nasals.

No, I don't think that's the relevant question. French developed (phonemic) nasal vowels when the following nasal caused nasalization in the vowel, and then the nasal itself was dropped. There are dialects of English, and Viktor's could be one of them, where the nasal is dropped, leaving nasalization on the vowel as the only mark that there was a phonemic nasal consonant there.

That's what he's asking about.

However, I agree that I think it's allophonic in this case.

Chibi wrote:

cromulant wrote:The relevant question here is, do you have these "phonemic" nasal vowels anywhere besides before nasals.

No, I don't think that's the relevant question. French developed (phonemic) nasal vowels when the following nasal caused nasalization in the vowel, and then the nasal itself was dropped. There are dialects of English, and Viktor's could be one of them, where the nasal is dropped, leaving nasalization on the vowel as the only mark that there was a phonemic nasal consonant there.

That's what he's asking about.

However, I agree that I think it's allophonic in this case.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. But what I've determined in this thread is that they are only allophonic in words like Mint and Hemp and that in Month and in Honk they are truly phonemic. I cannot sense in the least any nasal consonant in either of these words. And if I can confirm that these are in fact phonemically nasal vowels, I want to determine under what conditions they are phonemically nasal.

Another test: what about word-final vowel+nasal combinations?

Another thing to think about is that just because there is no nasal consonant present doesn't make it phonemic. If it's "phonemic" only in certain cases, then it's probably not actually "phonemic"...because if you have to use words like "under what conditions" then they are allophones...phonemes theoretically shouldn't have any conditions as such (of course there are things like phonological constraints and stuff that govern where phonemes can occur, but this isn't a case of that, this is a case of "sometimes the nasal consonant is dropped", which to me doesn't constitute phonemic-ness)

...That was a horrible explanation of what I was thinking, so if you don't understand what was trying to say, I completely understand.

(On another note, why does firefox think that "combinations" is not a word?)

Chibi wrote:Another test: what about word-final vowel+nasal combinations?

Another thing to think about is that just because there is no nasal consonant present doesn't make it phonemic. If it's "phonemic" only in certain cases, then it's probably not actually "phonemic"...because if you have to use words like "under what conditions" then they are allophones...phonemes theoretically shouldn't have any conditions as such (of course there are things like phonological constraints and stuff that govern where phonemes can occur, but this isn't a case of that, this is a case of "sometimes the nasal consonant is dropped", which to me doesn't constitute phonemic-ness)

...That was a horrible explanation of what I was thinking, so if you don't understand what was trying to say, I completely understand.

(On another note, why does firefox think that "combinations" is not a word?)

You mean like Ben? Ten? Lin? Fen? These are clearly allophonic and the nasal consonant is clearly there.

But could we talk about there being the phonological constraint that my dialect has phonemic vowels before dental fricatives and unvoiced velars (since final voiced velars after nasals is another phoneme altogether)?

This is why I made this thread, in hopes of finding someone from the Inland North who could help me out here. I can try to record later.

Sorry, I didn't notice that Viktor doesn't have nasal consonants in those words. That's what I get for trying to post while someone's kicking me off the computer.

Viktor77 wrote:That's exactly what I'm talking about. But what I've determined in this thread is that they are only allophonic in words like Mint and Hemp and that in Month and in Honk they are truly phonemic. I cannot sense in the least any nasal consonant in either of these words. And if I can confirm that these are in fact phonemically nasal vowels, I want to determine under what conditions they are phonemically nasal.

It feels like you are unclear on what phonemic means. You can't examine a word in isolation to see if a segment is phonemic. If you nasalize V+n to the point of losing the n, that's a phonetic fact, at least till you can make a case that the distinction is phonemic. Minimal pairs would be a good start.

Example of actually phonemic nasality:

ahuri /ayRi/ "dazed" vs enhardi /A~aRdi/ "enboldened" (contrastive before vowel)
anarchie /anaRSi/ "anarchy" vs enharmonie /A~naRmoni/ "enharmonic equivalent" (contrastive before nasal consonant)
pater /patER/ "Lord's prayer" vs panthère /pA~tER/ "panther" (constrative before non-nasal consonant)
amas /ama/ "heap" vs amant /amA~/ "lover" (contrastive with word-final vowel)
scène /sEn/ "scene" vs saint /sE~/ "saint" (contrastive with coda nasal)

Some three-way contrasts:

pas /pa/ "step" vs panne /pan/ "breakdown" vs paon /pA~/ "peacock"
amener /am@ne/ "to bring" vs emmener /A~m@ne/ "to take away" vs enlever /A~l@ve/ "to remove"

I do have contrasting nasalized and plain vowels in my English, but they never occur at the end of a word. I wouldn't call them phonemic though, because they only occur before some stops (mostly /t/).

Ok you guys, yes or no.

http://vocaroo.com/i/s05jz50yIi8V

You have nasalized vowels before /n/, like most American English speakers. You haven't provided any evidence yet that this is anything more than an allophonic realization of /VnC/.

(I don't really get what words you're trying to contrast... sounds like month, honk, mint, hemp, but if you're trying to make minimal pairs, what are the other words?)

In fast speech, my intervocalic /n/, /nt/, and /nd/ are realized as nasalization of the vowels

so "twenty" is [tʰwʌ̃i]

TaylorS wrote:In fast speech, my intervocalic /n/, /nt/, and /nd/ are realized as nasalization of the vowels

so "twenty" is [tʰwʌ̃i]

Same here.

That said, I would have to say that what Viktor speaks of is probably better-described not as phonemic vowel nasality, even though it could be described that way, but rather as the allophonic elision of /n/ in particular types of VnC positions.

I have exactly what Viktor has (except I do not round my STRUT vowel), and then some, yet I would not claim that I have phonemic nasal vowels, at least on the basis of just that. Even cases like twenty [ˈtʰwʌ̃̂ĩ̯] and other similar words could only be used to support that if it turns out that the distribution of such elisions happened to be unpredictable, i.e. lexicalized.

Because of my idiolect, the realization of <twenty> is [tɕʷə̃ʌ̃i̯f᷂ː]

the [f] is a strident release of air because I have asthma.

zompist wrote:You have nasalized vowels before /n/, like most American English speakers. You haven't provided any evidence yet that this is anything more than an allophonic realization of /VnC/.

(I don't really get what words you're trying to contrast... sounds like month, honk, mint, hemp, but if you're trying to make minimal pairs, what are the other words?)

I'd imagine that he's thinking of pairs like mint/mitt as minimal.

I'd agree that there's nothing to stop a nasalised vowel in a word like "mint" from being seen as a realisation of vowel+/n/, just as I think of the postalveolar nasal I have in words like "new" as a realisation of /nj/, though there's then a question of how you can objectively choose between that analysis and the phonemic nasal vowel one.

AnTeallach wrote: I'd imagine that he's thinking of pairs like mint/mitt as minimal.

I'd agree that there's nothing to stop a nasalised vowel in a word like "mint" from being seen as a realisation of vowel+/n/, just as I think of the postalveolar nasal I have in words like "new" as a realisation of /nj/, though there's then a question of how you can objectively choose between that analysis and the phonemic nasal vowel one.

By proving the contrast applies elsewhere, for instance before a nasal consonant, or word finally (contrasted with both a final oral vowel and a final nasal consonant).

Travis B. wrote:

TaylorS wrote:In fast speech, my intervocalic /n/, /nt/, and /nd/ are realized as nasalization of the vowels

so "twenty" is [tʰwʌ̃i]

Same here.

That said, I would have to say that what Viktor speaks of is probably better-described not as phonemic vowel nasality, even though it could be described that way, but rather as the allophonic elision of /n/ in particular types of VnC positions.

I have exactly what Viktor has (except I do not round my STRUT vowel), and then some, yet I would not claim that I have phonemic nasal vowels, at least on the basis of just that. Even cases like twenty [ˈtʰwʌ̃̂ĩ̯] and other similar words could only be used to support that if it turns out that the distribution of such elisions happened to be unpredictable, i.e. lexicalized.

That makes sense. It's not strictly vowel allophony and not phonemic by any means, but allophony with an elision of /n/. That seems a sensible description.

Regarding Twenty, I disagree with yours and Taylor's and Bristel's transcription as I seem to make it more [tSwO~ni] and in careful speech [tSwO~nti]. But at least for me, it's the alveolar that drops and the nasal becomes the new onset for the final syllable.

Viktor77 wrote:Regarding Twenty, I disagree with yours and Taylor's and Bristel's transcription as I seem to make it more [tSwO~ni] and in careful speech [tSwO~nti]. But at least for me, it's the alveolar that drops and the nasal becomes the new onset for the final syllable.

Uh, they're transcribing their own pronunciations.

Drydic Guy wrote:

Viktor77 wrote:Regarding Twenty, I disagree with yours and Taylor's and Bristel's transcription as I seem to make it more [tSwO~ni] and in careful speech [tSwO~nti]. But at least for me, it's the alveolar that drops and the nasal becomes the new onset for the final syllable.

Uh, they're transcribing their own pronunciations.

I'm not debating that they're doing it wrong haha. I was saying that as in mine is just different. That was awkwardly worded.

Viktor77 wrote:That was awkwardly worded.

Every Viktor post ever is that self-referencial sentence (not this one, the one above it).