The "How do You Pronounce X" Thread

[----]

May I stand in awe of you? I did hear the difference on the computer once, but only because I was comparing. Otherwise, I'm not sure I would.

lol actually I don't think salha is a word in Portuguese, but they are different phonemes nevertheless.

There's a minimal pair between maia 'Mayan' and malha 'mesh; network'.

[Thry]

Obrigado pelo exemplo! Não conseguia imaginar nenhum.

[Travis B.]

grocery: /ˈɡroʃri/ > [ˈɡ̊ɰˤoɕɹ̠͡ɰˤi(ː)]
grocer: /ˈɡroʃər/ > [ˈɡ̊ɰˤoɕʁ̩ˤ(ː)]
parliament: /ˈparləmɪnt/ > [ˈpʰɑːʁˤɰə̃ɯɨ̃ʔ]
lute: /ˈlut/ > [ˈʟ̞uʔ]~[ˈɰuʔ]
lieutenant: /luˈtɜnɪnt/ > [ʟ̞uˈtʰɜ̟̃ːnɨ̃ʔ]~[ɰuˈtʰɜ̟̃ːnɨ̃ʔ]~[ʟ̞uˈtʰɜ̟̃ːɨ̯̃ʔ]~[ɰuˈtʰɜ̟̃ːɨ̯̃ʔ]

[L'alphabētarium]

farther vs further

I say:
farther ['fɑɹ.ðɚ]
and
further ['fɜɹ.ðɚ]

For some reason, I get a tiny bit peeved everytime I hear someone pronounce further as ['fɑɹ.ðɚ].
Unless, they actually use farther at that time, but I've definitely know at least two of them that pronounce both words as ['fɑɹ.ðɚ].
Plus, is it just me, or does farther get substituted for further in most cases?
I know the difference, but still...

[ol bofosh]

further [fœː.ðə]
farther [fɐː.ðə] (same as father)

But, yes, I say further and not farther. Having read about the difference a few months ago, but have since forgotten (can't have been that important, lol).

[finlay]

farther vs further

I say:
farther ['fɑɹ.ðɚ]
and
further ['fɜɹ.ðɚ]

For some reason, I get a tiny bit peeved everytime I hear someone pronounce further as ['fɑɹ.ðɚ].
Unless, they actually use farther at that time, but I've definitely know at least two of them that pronounce both words as ['fɑɹ.ðɚ].
Plus, is it just me, or does farther get substituted for further in most cases?
I know the difference, but still...

You'd hate the Japanese - they can't tell the difference between those two sounds for shit.

Also you'd hate most native English speakers for not knowing there's a difference between the two words. I always thought "farther" was just an American variant of "further" until I discovered that there's a largely prescriptivist rule governing the distinction. I still have no idea what it's meant to be. Distance versus metaphorical, perhaps?

[ol bofosh]

further for time or amount.

farther for length or distance.

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000213.htm

I would have thought it was the other way round. I'd only make the difference if I was in a highly prescriptivist context, otherwise everything's "further".

[L'alphabētarium]

I always thought "farther" was just an American variant of "further" until I discovered that there's a largely prescriptivist rule governing the distinction. I still have no idea what it's meant to be. Distance versus metaphorical, perhaps?

So it seems...
Although I think further can have both meanings, so maybe that's why it's more common.

You'd hate the Japanese - they can't tell the difference between those two sounds for shit.

I have issues with most Japanese people speaking English (ō eni azā wesutān rangueji tsu bi ekuzakuto!)

[ol bofosh]

I have issues with most Japanese people speaking English (ō eni azā wesutān rangueji tsu bi ekuzakuto!)

That last word looks like Basque (probably all the <z> and <k>). So, the Japanese speaking English sounds like Basque?

[L'alphabētarium]

I have issues with most Japanese people speaking English (ō eni azā wesutān rangueji tsu bi ekuzakuto!)

That last word looks like Basque (probably all the <z> and <k>). So, the Japanese speaking English sounds like Basque?

Hardly!
Then again [doʊmoʊ əɹɪgætoʊ] must be pretty painful for most japanese ears, as well...

[ol bofosh]

Why can't do some Spaniards say [j] is stead of [dZ] (es fácil, ch con voz)? That gets pretty annoying. But then I remember that the phones behinds <ll>, <ñ> and <rr> aren't my [fɔː.ˈtɛi].

[L'alphabētarium]

Why can't some Spaniards say [j] is stead of [dZ] (es fácil, ch con voz)?

I can actually understand that.
In Spanish (much like in Greek - my native tongue) there is no consonantal [j]. Instead, there's [ʝ] which can be an allophone of <ll> at certain dialects and for certain people. Now, [ʝ] is phonologically very close to [ʒ] and [dʒ] and it's also very common to substitute it for [ʝ]. So (for most Spanish speakers) it's [j] -> [ʝ] -> [(d)ʒ]. That's why you can hear "yo" as either [ʝo], [ʒo] or [dʒo], but never [jo].

<ñ>

How do you pronounce "new"?

[Ser]

Now, [ʝ] is phonologically very close to [ʒ] and [dʒ] and it's also very common to substitute it for [ʝ]. So (for most Spanish speakers) it's [j] -> [ʝ] -> [(d)ʒ]. That's why you can hear "yo" as either [ʝo], [ʒo] or [dʒo], but never [jo].

In my dialect, we use [j] a lot, don't say I never say [jo]. This goes for Central America as a whole.

Now, [ʝ] is phonologically very close to [ʒ] and [dʒ]

As an irrelevant impressionistic/anecdotical comment: I don't think the [ʝ] they use in other dialects is more phonetically close to English/French [ʒ] than English/French [j] either—though maybe it's because I perceive it through my own system...

Why can't some Spaniards say [j] is stead of [dZ] (es fácil, ch con voz)?

Because [ʝ] and [dʒ] aren't distinct phonemes in Spanish, but allophones of the same phoneme. (a distinct /ʝ/, or part of /i/, depending on what phonemic analysis you prefer.)

[L'alphabētarium]

Now, [ʝ] is phonologically very close to [ʒ] and [dʒ] and it's also very common to substitute it for [ʝ]. So (for most Spanish speakers) it's [j] -> [ʝ] -> [(d)ʒ]. That's why you can hear "yo" as either [ʝo], [ʒo] or [dʒo], but never [jo].

In my dialect, we use [j] a lot, don't say I never say [jo]. This goes for Central America as a whole.

Sorry, my bad. I didn't know Spanish [j] actually existed as a [ʝ] substitute.
I still think [(d)ʒ] must be easier than [j] for most Spanish speakers when they speak English.
And I personally think it's rather kewt! I love Spanish's colour in English...

[Ser]

I still think [(d)ʒ] must be easier than [j] for most Spanish speakers when they speak English.

Maybe you're just mostly exposed to Mexican Spanish-accented English... It's very common in Mexico to use [dʒ] for intervocalic /ʝ/, but this isn't all that true of Spaniard Spanish (ol bofosh lives somewhere in eastern Spain) or Salvadoran Spanish (though [dʒ] for intervocalic /ʝ/ exists in both countries as well).

[L'alphabētarium]

I still think [(d)ʒ] must be easier than [j] for most Spanish speakers when they speak English.

Maybe you're just mostly exposed to Mexican Spanish-accented English... It's very common in Mexico to use [dʒ] for intervocalic /ʝ/, but this isn't all that true of Spaniard Spanish (ol bofosh lives somewhere in eastern Spain) or Salvadoran Spanish (though [dʒ] for intervocalic /ʝ/ exists in both countries as well).

I know for a fact it also happens in parts of Colombia and in the Rioplatense dialect.

[ol bofosh]

Why can't do some Spaniards say [j] is stead of [dZ] (es fácil, ch con voz)?

Sorry, got that the wrong way round. I was thinking the other way round.

My nephew (3yr) heard me say John and it instantly turned into Yon (that I could make out)."Yack and Yill" just don't sound the same.

How do you pronounce "new"?

New I pronounce [nʲʉː] I think. Before I knew about palatalised consonants I would have said [nj], but I think it is palatalised. Like in "onion" too.

I'm a bit confused about [ʲ i j] and what their relationship with palatal consonants is anyway.

[L'alphabētarium]

How do you pronounce "new"?

New I pronounce [nʲʉː] I think. Before I knew about palatalised consonants I would have said [nj], but I think it is palatalised. Like in "onion" too.

I'm a bit confused about [ʲ i j] and what their relationship with palatal consonants is anyway.

For me [ɲ] and [nʲ] - as well as [ʎ] and [lʲ] - is exactly the same sound.
It's [n] + [ʲ] = [ɲ]. Simple as that!

Then again, this must be one of these annoying cases of: "If you can't pronounce it correctly yourself, you cannot fully understand it!"
Me hate dis!

[Thry]

And IIRC in Greek /lʲ/ is [ʎ] right?

[Ser]

For me [ɲ] and [nʲ] - as well as [ʎ] and [lʲ] - is exactly the same sound.
It's [n] + [ʲ] = [ɲ]. Simple as that!

Maybe it isn't clear to you that the use of the IPA is highly language-dependent... There's languages where it's irrelevant to talk of "[nʲ]" or "[ɲ]" (so there's a choice to use either according to other reasons), and then there's languages that contrast sounds we could describe as "[nʲ]" and "[ɲ]" (Irish I think).

The same goes for your comment above:

Now, [ʝ] is phonologically very close to [ʒ] and [dʒ]

Whose [ʒ] and [dʒ] is Spanish [ʝ] is close to? English [ʒ] and [dʒ]? Romanian [ʒ] and [dʒ]?

[L'alphabētarium]

And IIRC in Greek /lʲ/ is [ʎ] right?

Yes, it is.

Maybe it isn't clear to you that the use of the IPA is highly language-dependent...

No, it isn't.

Whose [ʒ] and [dʒ] is Spanish [ʝ] is close to? English [ʒ] and [dʒ]? Romanian [ʒ] and [dʒ]?

I don't know what planet you live on, but in my sphere of existence [ʒ] is ALWAYS [ʒ] and [dʒ] is ALWAYS [dʒ], no matter the language!

[----]

Actually yeah, IPA is language dependent. As I'm sure you've noticed, the mouth isn't a group of seven or eight infinitesimal points. It's one structure with several different *continuous* parts, which means that two different sounds can both be e.g. voiced postalveolar fricatives.

[finlay]

And IIRC in Greek /lʲ/ is [ʎ] right?

Yes, it is.

Maybe it isn't clear to you that the use of the IPA is highly language-dependent...

No, it isn't.

Uh, yes, yes it is. Quite heavily so.

To take the ʒ/dʒ example, in English the two have some degree of lip rounding, whereas in other languages this isn't necessarily the case. The same sound in Japanese, for example, doesn't have this, and is usually pronounced with spread lips. Sometimes people use dʑ to emphasise the difference.

[Ser]

Whose [ʒ] and [dʒ] is Spanish [ʝ] is close to? English [ʒ] and [dʒ]? Romanian [ʒ] and [dʒ]?

I don't know what planet you live on, but in my sphere of existence [ʒ] is ALWAYS [ʒ] and [dʒ] is ALWAYS [dʒ], no matter the language!

Nah—try reading different authors' descriptions of a given language's phonology. You'll marvel at how different their transcriptions can be, even when they're describing literally the same accent. Then it becomes quite obvious that linguists simply use this or that IPA symbol according to what fits best¹, or just out of tradition².

1. For example, the phoneme in Cantonese written as <j> in Yale romanization and <z> in Jyutping romanization, an unaspirated voiceless coronal affricate, is pronounced most towards the front before [i:, ɪ, y:], less so before [ei, ɛ:, ɵ, œ:], less so before the rest. If you read different accounts of its phonology, you'll see different authors use all sorts of different symbols: [ts] throughout, [tʃ] throughout, [tɕ] throughout, [tɕ] before [i:, ɪ, y:] and [ts] everywhere else, or [tɕ] before [i:, ɪ, y:, ei, ɛ:, ɵ(y), œ:] and [ts] everywhere else.

2. For example, the English STRUT vowel is generally pronounced as a quite low, central vowel in Standard Southern British English. Ladefoged and Johnson in A Course in Phonetics (6th. ed.) even draw a diagram of SSBE vowels with [ʌ] right in the center—pointing out it's just a convention to use [ʌ] for this sound. (Linguists who work with Cantonese show that much variation because unlike English there isn't a long tradition of transcription. Anne Yue-Hashimoto's style of transcription in Studies in Yue Dialects 1: Phonology of Cantonese (1972) and Bauer and Benedict's in Modern Cantonese Phonology (1997) are slowly reaching a status of canon—Wikipedia uses Yue-Hashimoto's style—, but they still aren't there.)



Now try sliding your tongue from (English) [z] to [ʒ].

[L'alphabētarium]

Mind = Blown

Why do we even bother using IPA then?
And, as it seems, it's not only part of different languages, dialects or idioms, but also part of individual speech patterns from person to person...
Either IPA generalises a bit too much... or it's running out of symbols!