Careful Speech

[Terra]

Some distinctions show up only in perfect speech. For example, in English, medial /t/ becomes [d], merging words like 'latter' and 'ladder'. However, if you asked for somebody to repeat themselves, because they were mumbling, they would slow down and pronounce the /t/ in 'latter' as [t].

Are there any other distinctions in English (or other languages) that are like this?

(Iirc, Legion once mentioned that French's distinction between /œ/ and /œ:/ was like this, iirc.)

[Zaarin]

In my dialect, "latter" and "ladder" don't merge: [læɾɹ̩] vs. [lædɹ̩].

This may just be me personally, but for me "since/sense" [sɛns] and "and/end" [ɛnd] are only distinguished in careful speech. Interestingly, I don't merge "pin/pen."

[KathTheDragon]

My dialect doesn't merge the two either: [lætɜ] vs. [lædɜ].

You have to be careful when you talk about 'English'. There are so many dialects that generalising to 'English' is virtually impossible for most things.

[Matrix]

I do merge ladder and latter. I don't merge since and sense - [ɪ] and [ɛ]. This is consistent with my not merging pin and pen. I do merge and and end, though.

[Grunnen]

In my language, I normally devoice word initial /v/ to [f], but in veeeery careful speech I would say [v] and thus distinguish it from /f/.
Also I normally vocalise coda /l/. If someone mishears it I will however pronounce it [ɫ]. The vocalised /l/ very nearly merges with postvocalic /ʋ/.

[Terra]

You have to be careful when you talk about 'English'. There are so many dialects that generalising to 'English' is virtually impossible for most things.

Sorry. "Some" dialects do this (including mine).

"and/end" [ɛnd] are only distinguished in careful speech.

Ah, that reminds me, the [æ] vs [E] distinction happens not only in "and", but also in "am".

[linguoboy]

"and/end" [ɛnd] are only distinguished in careful speech.

Ah, that reminds me, the [æ] vs [E] distinction happens not only in "and", but also in "am".

And, for many people (myself included) then vs than.

"Careful speech" for me means undoing a lot of shwa deletions. /r/ deletions, too. For instance, [sɚˈpʰɹaɪzd] rather than [səˈpʰɹaɪzd] or [ˈsp(ʰ)ɹaɪzd].

This register can also introduce spelling pronunciations. I remember a funny German cabaret sketch which featured two men trying to communicate with a(n unseen) third person who was evidently not a fluent or perhaps even competent German-speaker. At one point, one of them pronounces the word gesehen "seen" in three distinct syllables. Not only does he treat the first and last shwa as [ɛ], but he aspirates the h, even though this is a purely orthographic device for indicating vowel length and is not now nor has it ever been pronounced [h] in any variety of German I've ever encountred.

[hwhatting]

I remember a funny German cabaret sketch which featured two men trying to communicate with a(n unseen) third person who was evidently not a fluent or perhaps even competent German-speaker. At one point, one of them pronounces the word gesehen "seen" in three distinct syllables. Not only does he treat the first and last shwa as [ɛ], but he aspirates the h, even though this is a purely orthographic device for indicating vowel length and is not now nor has it ever been pronounced [h] in any variety of German I've ever encountred.

Funny, I would reproduce the first shwa as [e:] in that kind of "spelling pronouciation", as it's in an open syllable; otherwise my spelling pronouciation would be the same, including the [h]. Actually, in this case, the "h" is etymological, so it was pronounced at one point - I don't know when in German language history intervocalic post-stress [h] ceased to be pronounced (or, more precisley, was replaced by a glottal stop), but it must still have been there when the orthographies where established that later led to the convention of using "h" to indicate length and / or an intervocalic glottal stop.

In Russian, careful speech tends to undo the vowel reductions and mergers in unstressed syllables, In "normal" careful speech (e.g. when simply speaking slowly or reading a text), the reductions become less strong; in "spelling / dictation speech" the mergers become undone, espcially the /a/ ~ /o/ merger.

[linguoboy]

Actually, in this case, the "h" is etymological, so it was pronounced at one point

Oh, right you are. I got the etymologies of sehen and Seen confused and thought there was only a *w here, not a *hw. An unetymological example would be gehen.

[TaylorS]

I have the intervocalic flap even in careful speech.

[finlay]

I hear people enouncing "a" and "the" as /ei/ and /Di/ sometimes, which I've completely trained myself out of, since at least in classes I have to try and speak in a way that my students can copy. So I always use a schwa in both.

[linguoboy]

I hear people enouncing "a" and "the" as /ei/ and /Di/ sometimes, which I've completely trained myself out of, since at least in classes I have to try and speak in a way that my students can copy. So I always use a schwa in both.

There's a comedian who used to be on SNL back in the day who would introduce himself as, "I'm A. Whitney Brown. One day, I hope to be THE Whitney Brown."

To this, I would add [æn] for an and [ænd] for and, both of which tend to merge as syllabic /n/ in my ordinary speech.

[Qwynegold]

In (my) Swedish jag (I) and ja (yes) usually merge, because wordfinal /ɡ/ is elided in some words. But in careful speech I pronunce them [ˈjɑːɡ] resp. [ˈjɑː]. Same goes for other words with final silent Gs.

[Terra]

I hear people enouncing "a" and "the" as /ei/ and /Di/ sometimes, which I've completely trained myself out of, since at least in classes I have to try and speak in a way that my students can copy. So I always use a schwa in both.

I have a somewhat similar story. A couple years ago, I was teaching a Chinese friend how to use/read/form numbers in English. So, she asked me: "How do you read '100'?" I replied "one-hundred". Then I used it in a sentence: "There are a hundred dogs.". She immediately called me out: "You said 'a' not 'one'!" So, I had to try to describe when each was used, which wasn't easy!, because I had never thought about it before.

(Also, numbers are deceptively complex in English; There's different ways to read the same number depending on whether it's an amount or a year. For example, how does one read 1998? If it's a year: "nineteen ninety-eight", if it's an amount: "one-thousand nine-hundred ninety-eight". For a Chinese speaker, it's even more complex, because in Chinese, numbers are separated every 4 digits instead of every 3 digits.)

[finlay]

Plus the rule on when to use "and" (eg "one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight"), which only applies to British English apparently, so I often skip it. Or "twentieth" and "thirtieth" getting an extra syllable - [twenti@T] not [twenti:T]. Or twenty-first instead of twenty-oneth, although that's not so surprising in a way. Or yeah, the look of mild despair in my kid students' eyes when they've assumed that a million means 10,000 and I tell them otherwise. Confusingly, they put commas in the numbers in Japan in the same places as in the West and just treat them as decoration (this is in contrast to India, where above 1,000 the commas are put in different places to reflect the lakh/crore system), although it doesn't take too much prodding for them to work out that we use the commas to work out which number we're looking at rather than counting how many zeroes every time.

Actually the bit they have the biggest trouble with is distinguishing 13 and 30, 14 and 40 etc. We have enough trouble with this as native speakers, to be fair, but it's exaggerated when they're learning it.

They're not all that bad, though, considering we're not French or Danish with their semi-vigesimal systems.

[Terra]

Or twenty-first instead of twenty-oneth, although that's not so surprising in a way

She had generalized it another way. She also asked why it was 11th, and not 11st; It's 1st, 21st, 31st, etc, after all.

Or yeah, the look of mild despair in my kid students' eyes when they've assumed that a million means 10,000 and I tell them otherwise.

I didn't know this, but it makes sense; They want to recreate the Chinese system in English, and the first step is to have a number for 1,0000 to multiply from.

I remember a time that a freshman Indian student bravely asked in class "What's a 'grand'?" in "10 grand"? You also have to explain slang like "buck" too. Also, scores for sports games like "17-10" yield questions like: "Why are they subtracting 10 from 17?" Sports are a whole 'nother thing; Most Chinese have no idea how (American) football and baseball work.

[hwhatting]

Most Chinese have no idea how (American) football and baseball work.

I'd guess that applies to about 90% of none-USAnians.

[finlay]

Or twenty-first instead of twenty-oneth, although that's not so surprising in a way

She had generalized it another way. She also asked why it was 11th, and not 11st; It's 1st, 21st, 31st, etc, after all.

Or yeah, the look of mild despair in my kid students' eyes when they've assumed that a million means 10,000 and I tell them otherwise.

I didn't know this, but it makes sense; They want to recreate the Chinese system in English, and the first step is to have a number for 1,0000 to multiply from.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about the commas there: I mean technically I can't speak for China, but here they put the commas in the same place as the usual Western system, so they write 10,000 or 100,000 instead of 1,0000 or 10,0000 (although as often they write it like １万 or １０万, using a combination of characters and numerals). Incidentally, when I type that in the Japanese IME it gives the options of 100,000, 100000, or １０万, but not 10,0000. I don't know why they do this, but it means that the commas for them are meaningless decorations.

[linguoboy]

Speaking of numbers, here's another good example: 20 [̍tʰwʌni]. But in careful speech I'll say something closer to [ˈtʰwɛnti]. (And this despite the fact that my speech is pin-pen merged.)

[Terra]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about the commas there: I mean technically I can't speak for China, but here they put the commas in the same place as the usual Western system, so they write 10,000 or 100,000 instead of 1,0000 or 10,0000 (although as often they write it like １万 or １０万, using a combination of characters and numerals). Incidentally, when I type that in the Japanese IME it gives the options of 100,000, 100000, or １０万, but not 10,0000. I don't know why they do this, but it means that the commas for them are meaningless decorations.

I simply forgot that you are teaching in Japan and not China.

[Kereb]

Speaking of numbers, here's another good example: 20 [̍tʰwʌni]. But in careful speech I'll say something closer to [ˈtʰwɛnti]. (And this despite the fact that my speech is pin-pen merged.)

leaving aside the vowel (the twenny-twunny thing is another whole deal on its own), this is an example of medial -nt- which sometimes* gets reduced to -n- but is preserved in Careful Speech. so innernet, Toronno, cenner ...


* i'm not sure what the rule is, it seems inconsistent. and yes i know some accents don't have this at all

[vokzhen]

* i'm not sure what the rule is, it seems inconsistent. and yes i know some accents don't have this at all

Isn't it just alveolar flapping? t/d become a flap, n/nt become a nasal flap in the same kinds of contexts (it does seem rather interesting that nd resist it, though, you'd expect the voiceless one to resist).

[linguoboy]

Side discussion of sportsball in Euroland moved to Ephemera.

[Rui]

(Also, numbers are deceptively complex in English; There's different ways to read the same number depending on whether it's an amount or a year. For example, how does one read 1998? If it's a year: "nineteen ninety-eight", if it's an amount: "one-thousand nine-hundred ninety-eight". For a Chinese speaker, it's even more complex, because in Chinese, numbers are separated every 4 digits instead of every 3 digits.)

Chinese speakers differentiate numbers as used in years and just regular numbers too. "1998" would be "one nine nine eight year" (一九九八年) or "one thousand nine hundred ninety eight" (一千九百九十八). It gets fun when there are zeros involved, though, as any zero between 2 non-zero digits is said, but any zero afterwards is not. Thus "1,050" is read as "one thousand zero five"( 一千零五) while "1,005" is "one thousand zero zero five" (一千零零五). As years, those would be "one zero five zero" and "one zero zero five" respectively (一零五零 and 一零零五).

English has the added complexity that in certain cases, numbers in the thousands can be stated as an amount of hundreds ("I have fifteen hundred dollars")

[TaylorS]

20 [̍tʰwʌni].

Heh, I got some labial assimilation and elision going on turning it into [tʰwʊ̃i]!