zompist bboard

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE ONLY - see Ephemera
It is currently Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:32 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:00 pm 
Sanci
Sanci

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:29 pm
Posts: 64
https://books.google.com/books?id=5f5dA ... 22&f=false

I saw this in the Phonetics for Dummies book.

Quote:
Beginning transcribers may sometimes be confused by “ing” words, such as “thing” (/ɪŋ/ in IPA) or “sang” (/sæŋ/ in IPA). A typical question is “where is the “g”? This is a spelling illusion. Although some speakers may possibly be able to produce a "hard g" (made with full occlusion) for these examples (for example, "sing"), most talkers don't realize a final stop. They simply end with a velar nasal.


So apparently it's common for people to think words like "sing" and "thing" actually end in a [g] sound due to the "g" present in the spelling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:08 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:34 am
Posts: 838
Location: The North
Yeah, that's what happens when you teach the writing system without discussing phonetics. See also "English has five vowels" and other similar issues.

Also there are dialects which do pronounce a [g] in those words, generally concentrated around Lancashire, Cheshire and Merseyside (my mother uses that pronunciation for example).

_________________
https://frislander.tumblr.com/

First known on here as Karero


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:00 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 455
Just going to leave this here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_pronunciation

_________________
linguoboy wrote:
So that's what it looks like when the master satirist is moistened by his own moutarde.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:46 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 3197
Location: One of the dark places of the world
It's not a spelling pronunciation.

It's also not quite as simple as "thinking there's a /g/ because there's a [g]". Most people do not, for instance, believe there to be /b/ in "debt", or /s/ in "island".

The problem arises in this particular case because people know that there's not just an /n/ in these words - "sing" and "sin" aren't homophones, for instance. But because they have no words (or concepts) to describe the /N/ sound - and because, to be fair, the /N/ sound does sound a bit /g/-ish - they can only describe /N/ as being /n/ plus /g/, as it's spelled (and sort of sounds). So if you tell them there's no /g/, they get confused, because they know there's not just /n/, and they don't have the conscious concept of /N/ as an alternative for what might be there.

After all, if you "drop the G" from "walking", you get "walkin'", with an /n/... it's got an apostrophe and everything! And surely if 'dropping the G' were just turning something from /N/ to /n/ - a change with no loss of elements or gain in simplicity - then it wouldn't be such a common indicator of lazy speech!?

[similarly, some people think there's an /h/ in /S/ and /T/. But this is less common, probably because we don't have any productive, shibbolethical "dropping the H" process].

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:55 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Posts: 3687
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston
Frislander wrote:
Also there are dialects which do pronounce a [g] in those words, generally concentrated around Lancashire, Cheshire and Merseyside (my mother uses that pronunciation for example).

In the USA, this is a feature associated with New Yorkers, viz. the popular respelling of "Long Island" as "Long Guyland". It is generally ascribed to Yiddish influence.

I once tutored German to someone with this feature. Not only could he not say, e.g. singer without [g], he couldn't even hear the difference between singer and finger.

Incidentally, the historical pronunciation was with [ŋg], so this is rather the opposite of a spelling pronunciation. The varieties Frislander mentions are more conservative than Standard English with regard to this cluster, just as Yiddish is more conservative than Standard German.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:56 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:05 pm
Posts: 387
Salmoneus wrote:
It's not a spelling pronunciation.

It's also not quite as simple as "thinking there's a /g/ because there's a [g]". Most people do not, for instance, believe there to be /b/ in "debt", or /s/ in "island".

The problem arises in this particular case because people know that there's not just an /n/ in these words - "sing" and "sin" aren't homophones, for instance. But because they have no words (or concepts) to describe the /N/ sound - and because, to be fair, the /N/ sound does sound a bit /g/-ish - they can only describe /N/ as being /n/ plus /g/, as it's spelled (and sort of sounds). So if you tell them there's no /g/, they get confused, because they know there's not just /n/, and they don't have the conscious concept of /N/ as an alternative for what might be there.

After all, if you "drop the G" from "walking", you get "walkin'", with an /n/... it's got an apostrophe and everything! And surely if 'dropping the G' were just turning something from /N/ to /n/ - a change with no loss of elements or gain in simplicity - then it wouldn't be such a common indicator of lazy speech!?

[similarly, some people think there's an /h/ in /S/ and /T/. But this is less common, probably because we don't have any productive, shibbolethical "dropping the H" process].

And even beyond that, because of the history, there are still ways in which [ŋ] behaves synchronically in the phonology of English as if it were a cluster /ng/: it doesn't occur after long vowels/diphthongs, except for in onomatopoeic or expressive words, it alternates with [ŋg] in the comparative and superlative forms of long, strong, young, and of course, it doesn't occur word-initially or after other consonants. Facts like these make the status of /ŋ/ as a phoneme of English somewhat disputed even among phonetically knowledgeable analysts (apparently, a number of generative phonologists are in favor of analyzing English [ŋ] as synchronically derived from /ng/ (or /n/, before /k/): see this page from The Phonology of Swedish, Tomas Riad, for some references).

When learning how to do phonetic and phonemic transcriptions, you don't just have to learn about phones, but also about what the traditional/conventional abstractions are for representing specific languages' sound systems. No phonetic transcription is perfectly narrow, and of course a phonemic transcription will only represent one particular analysis of a language—which it is doubtful that everyone will agree on in all respects.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:44 am 
Sanci
Sanci

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:29 pm
Posts: 64
Salmoneus wrote:
[similarly, some people think there's an /h/ in /S/ and /T/. But this is less common, probably because we don't have any productive, shibbolethical "dropping the H" process].


Also, "sh" and "th" are usually taught as digraphs representing /S/ and /T/ when teachers are teaching phonics to students. "ng" is not as commonly taught as a digraph.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:43 pm 
Boardlord
Boardlord

Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Posts: 3377
Location: In the den
Salmoneus wrote:
[similarly, some people think there's an /h/ in /S/ and /T/. But this is less common, probably because we don't have any productive, shibbolethical "dropping the H" process].


Not over there, maybe, but we sure do, with /θ ð/. Quite a few nonstandard dialects turn these into [t d]; word-finally, AAVE turns them into [f v].

But I don't think anyone calls this "dropping the H". I think it's referred to by example: "He was a dese-and-dose kind of guy."

(Come to think of it, I've seen <wit'> for dialectal with. But never, say, <t'in> for thin.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:40 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am
Posts: 1611
Salmoneus wrote:
After all, if you "drop the G" from "walking", you get "walkin'", with an /n/... it's got an apostrophe and everything! And surely if 'dropping the G' were just turning something from /N/ to /n/ - a change with no loss of elements or gain in simplicity - then it wouldn't be such a common indicator of lazy speech!?

[similarly, some people think there's an /h/ in /S/ and /T/. But this is less common, probably because we don't have any productive, shibbolethical "dropping the H" process].

Also, while are native realizations of «ng» as [ŋɡ], AFAIK there are no native realizations of «th dh» as [th dh].

_________________
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:28 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 4545
Location: the Imperial Corridor
I've seen "t'ing" for "thing", but in the context of Caribbean kitsch

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:27 am 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Posts: 3687
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston
Pole, the wrote:
Also, while are native realizations of «ng» as [ŋɡ], AFAIK there are no native realizations of «th dh» as [th dh].

There are, in compound words, e.g. shithole, masthead madhouse, handhold.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:34 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Posts: 2261
Location: Austin, TX, USA
There should be a book called something like Masthead Madhouse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:54 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am
Posts: 1611
linguoboy wrote:
Pole, the wrote:
Also, while are native realizations of «ng» as [ŋɡ], AFAIK there are no native realizations of «th dh» as [th dh].

There are, in compound words, e.g. shithole, masthead madhouse, handhold.

Well, fair point. Still, these are undisputably distinct from /θ ð/.

What about “threshold”? Is this a case of /h/ creeping up from spelling pronunciation?

_________________
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:56 am 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Posts: 3687
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston
Pole, the wrote:
What about “threshold”? Is this a case of /h/ creeping up from spelling pronunciation?

Or folk etymology? To quote the OED:
Quote:
The first element is generally identified with thresh v. (? in its original sense ‘to tread, trample’), the forms of which it generally follows; but the second is doubtful, and has in English, as in other languages, undergone many popular transformations.

A "threshold" can be said to "hold" things (e.g. water, rodents) back from entring a house, so this reanalysis is fairly intuitive to me. If anything, it's the first element in the resulting perceived compound which I find puzzling. I think I might have tried to make sense of it when I was younger by hypothesising that thresholds were originally found on threshing rooms (where they served to keep rats out and grain from spilling everywhere) and were only later generalised.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:35 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Posts: 3600
Location: Tokyo
It's transcribed into Japanese as /ng/ (or /ngu/ at the end of words :roll: ) - at least for English, but not for Chinese and Korean. It's one pronunciation "error" the Japanese make that I've never really bothered correcting in lessons, as it doesn't impact their English much, and they might even have positive reinforcement of that pronunciation from some people. (like my coworker from Manchester who I'm pretty sure says the /g/)

Where it becomes a problem is actually for /n/ and /m/ at the end of words in English, as the Japanese coda-/n/ (ん) is underspecified for POA and actually sounds like [ɴ] or [ŋ] a lot of the time. It becomes [n] before other coronals and [m] before bilabials, but can also be [m] at the end of utterances, if the person closes their mouth after speaking for example, and before vowels it sounds downright weird, like a nasalization plus glide. And if they take this as an L2 error into English it can be difficult to understand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:25 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am
Posts: 1611
Quote:
Where it becomes a problem is actually for /n/ and /m/ at the end of words in English, as the Japanese coda-/n/ (ん) is underspecified for POA and actually sounds like [ɴ] or [ŋ] a lot of the time.

Isn't it common to pronounce /Vɴ/ as vowels with nasal offglides, not unlike French «in un an on» or Polish «ę ą»?

_________________
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:46 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:05 pm
Posts: 387
Pole, the wrote:
Quote:
Where it becomes a problem is actually for /n/ and /m/ at the end of words in English, as the Japanese coda-/n/ (ん) is underspecified for POA and actually sounds like [ɴ] or [ŋ] a lot of the time.

Isn't it common to pronounce /Vɴ/ as vowels with nasal offglides, not unlike French «in un an on» or Polish «ę ą»?


French «in un an on» aren't pronounced with nasal offglides, if I remember correctly: they're nasalized monophthongs. Finlay said Japanese /Vɴ/ is often realized with an offglide before vowels; I think I've read that this is also a common realization before fricatives. But before plosives or affricates, a vowel + nasal stop realization seems to be usual, similar to Polish «ę ą».


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:36 pm 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:31 am
Posts: 189
Location: Montrouge, France
Sumelic wrote:
French «in un an on» aren't pronounced with nasal offglides, if I remember correctly: they're nasalized monophthongs.

True in Standard French. Not true in Southern French, which does have nasal offglides which assimilate in POA with the following consonant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:07 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:05 pm
Posts: 387
Ryusenshi wrote:
Sumelic wrote:
French «in un an on» aren't pronounced with nasal offglides, if I remember correctly: they're nasalized monophthongs.

True in Standard French. Not true in Southern French, which does have nasal offglides which assimilate in POA with the following consonant.

Hmm, are we using "offglide" in the same way? I understood "nasal offlglide" in the Pole's comment to refer to the use of nasalized semi-vowelic glides like [ɔw̃]. It's hard for me to imagine how something like [w̃] would assimilate in POA to the following consonant (would it become something like [j̃] before /t/?). I had heard that Southern French could have, in place of nasal vowel phonemes, sequences of a vowel + a nasal stop like [ŋ]; it makes sense that such a nasal stop would be able to assimilate in POA to a following consonant (although there are also Romance languages that have developed things like [Vŋt] sequences, apparently).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:47 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am
Posts: 1611
Sumelic wrote:
Hmm, are we using "offglide" in the same way? I understood "nasal offlglide" in the Pole's comment to refer to the use of nasalized semi-vowelic glides like [ɔw̃]. It's hard for me to imagine how something like [w̃] would assimilate in POA to the following consonant (would it become something like [j̃] before /t/?).

If I understand correctly, Ryu meant nasal offglides that become POA-assimilated nasal stops.

_________________
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:04 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Posts: 3600
Location: Tokyo
Pole, the wrote:
Quote:
Where it becomes a problem is actually for /n/ and /m/ at the end of words in English, as the Japanese coda-/n/ (ん) is underspecified for POA and actually sounds like [ɴ] or [ŋ] a lot of the time.

Isn't it common to pronounce /Vɴ/ as vowels with nasal offglides, not unlike French «in un an on» or Polish «ę ą»?

also yes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:02 am 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:31 am
Posts: 189
Location: Montrouge, France
Sumelic wrote:
Hmm, are we using "offglide" in the same way?

Apparently not. I may have used the wrong word here. I was thinking about what finlay said about Japanese.

Sumelic wrote:
I had heard that Southern French could have, in place of nasal vowel phonemes, sequences of a vowel + a nasal stop like [ŋ]; it makes sense that such a nasal stop would be able to assimilate in POA to a following consonant

Yes, this it what I had in mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group