Nortaneous wrote:"Recognize" without /g/ strikes me as an AAVE thing, but there are a lot of things that strike me as AAVE things that are probably just not as conservative as what I'd say. (Do white people say "put it up" for "put it away"?)
I both elide the /g/ and say "put it up"--I'm white from the north* with a GenAm accent and grew up in a very white circle.
* Technically I was born in Arizona and raised a lot of places, but my parents are from New York and my friends were all from the Northeast. Hence my complete lack of Southernisms despite growing up the longest in Georgia; I just wasn't around people with Southern accents.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
Nortaneous wrote:Theta: My impression (which could be wrong) is that "put it up" is strictly limited to AAVE and maybe the Southern dialects that influenced it, with "put it away" being its equivalent everywhere else. "Put it up" is never valid IMI.
Born and raised in Austin, Texas: "put it up" is totally valid for me. Do y'all also not have the item "put someone up" meaning "to house someone temporarily"?
I did have a bizarrely similar (to the original poster's) accident about four years ago, in which I slipped over a cookie and somehow twisted my ankle so far that it broke
What kind of cookie?
Aeetlrcreejl > Kicgan Vekei > me /ne.ses.tso.sats/
To me "put it up" is grammatical, but is not used in all the places that "put it away" would be used. The main usage of "put it up" (aside from the particular meaning of "put someone up" mentioned before) that I can think of is "put it up in the X" where X is something like "cupboard", "cabinet", "closet", etc., probably influenced by the physical position of said cupboard, cabinet, or closet.
Nortaneous wrote:Theta: My impression (which could be wrong) is that "put it up" is strictly limited to AAVE and maybe the Southern dialects that influenced it, with "put it away" being its equivalent everywhere else. "Put it up" is never valid IMI.
Born and raised in Austin, Texas: "put it up" is totally valid for me. Do y'all also not have the item "put someone up" meaning "to house someone temporarily"?
I've heard it and I'd understand it. Not sure if I'd say it; if I would, it'd have to be followed by a time-delimiter. (To distinguish from the "put away" meaning, maybe...?)
This isn't a question about a specific lexical item but it is an English pronunciation thing. One thing I have noticed in my own speech is an off-glide that appears with low vowels before certain consonants. For example, the word <lot> actually sounds like [ɫɑɨ̯t] or [ɫɑə̯t], but I pronounce <lop> and <lock> with a monophthong, and <lawn> is pronounced [ɫɑə̯n]. /æ/ also shows this phenomenon before /n/, e.g. <land> is [ɫæə̯n] but <mat> is [mæt], without an offglide. As far as I can tell this doesn't occur with the vowel in words like <light> and <line> as a secondary process *after* they are monophthongized in the expected way.
Here's one I've been curious about for a while: how do you guys pronounce "almond" and "almonds"? I've usually got [ˈɑlmənd] for the former, while the [d] seems to more or less drop out in the latter, resulting in [ˈɑlməns]. However, I lived up in Chico in the northern Sacrimento Valley for a while, and the standard pronunciation among the locals seemed to be [ˈæmənd] or [ˈæmn̩d].
dropping the L is standard, although many people say it. I think I said it up until recently, only dropping it through japanese influence (because in japanese loanwords are spelt phonetically, so it must be āmondo and not almondo). I suppose a pertinent question would be, does it belong to the palm set (/ɑ:/) or the trap set (/æ/)? In scotland perhaps it's moot because most people don't distinguish them, although in RP I'm pretty sure it's in the palm set.
zompist wrote:Tropylium: yes, it's surprising; that's why linguistics is exciting.
Lexical diffusion wasn't postulated based on examination of historical sound change, but on observing ongoing sound change— an effort pioneered by Labov. He discusses the subject in three 500-page books, which aren't light reading. But look up the discussion in Trask.
I have a good example of lexical diffusion in my own speech. Among younger speakers in the Fargo area /ɑ/ ranges in free variation between [ɑ] and [ɔ], though the [ɔ] variant is becoming more common when adjacent to labials, /w/, and /l/.
zompist wrote:Tropylium: yes, it's surprising; that's why linguistics is exciting.
Lexical diffusion wasn't postulated based on examination of historical sound change, but on observing ongoing sound change— an effort pioneered by Labov. He discusses the subject in three 500-page books, which aren't light reading. But look up the discussion in Trask.
I have a good example of lexical diffusion in my own speech. Among younger speakers in the Fargo area /ɑ/ ranges in free variation between [ɑ] and [ɔ], though the [ɔ] variant is becoming more common when adjacent to labials, /w/, and /l/.
Interesting, 400 miles southeast of you, I maintain a cot-caught as [a ɒ] except I only have [ɒ] before /l/. Meanwhile, I have [ər] in words like card, bard, guard, carve, and [ɑr] in car, bar, gar, but also in chard (a leaf vegetable), starve, and Mars. If Wiktionary's rhyme lists are complete, those three are the only words ending in -ArC that haven't made the shift to [ər], except in derivations (bard/barred have different vowels).
Another example from my own dialect: the loss of /U@/. Other than following /j/, when it tends to head in the direction of /u@/, it otherwise tends to merge with /O/. But this varies word-by-word. "Poor" and "moor" are usually now with /O/ - although in both cases I have variation, partly as a result of an intention wish to retain the phoneme (which is not bizarre, I hasten to add - it's still around within SSBE and widespread outside of it). So I normally have /pO/ in casual speech, but /pU@/ in more precise speech - I'm more often to retain /U@/ when the meaning is 'without wealth' and definitely when it is used as a noun ('the poor'), and more likely to have /O/ when the meaning is 'unfortunate'. With 'moor', I have /U@/ when the meaning from the maghreb, and when a common noun, particularly when plural, but more likely to have /O/ when it's part of a name (eg 'Bodmin Moor' normally has /O/ for me).
Both those nouns are normally /O/ for most people I know. 'Sure', however, is more likely to be /U@/, but can still be reduced to /O/ - I use /U@/ when emphasised but /O/ in more casual speech - that's not affected, that's just how I speak. And then you have words like 'tour', where the older vowel is widely retained, and I never use /O/ there. Although some people do shift it toward /u@/. Similarly with 'lure'. 'Dour', on the other hand, is widely realised as /aU@/, though I retain /U@/.
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!
Salmoneus wrote:Another example from my own dialect: the loss of /U@/. Other than following /j/, when it tends to head in the direction of /u@/, it otherwise tends to merge with /O/. But this varies word-by-word. "Poor" and "moor" are usually now with /O/ - although in both cases I have variation, partly as a result of an intention wish to retain the phoneme (which is not bizarre, I hasten to add - it's still around within SSBE and widespread outside of it). So I normally have /pO/ in casual speech, but /pU@/ in more precise speech - I'm more often to retain /U@/ when the meaning is 'without wealth' and definitely when it is used as a noun ('the poor'), and more likely to have /O/ when the meaning is 'unfortunate'. With 'moor', I have /U@/ when the meaning from the maghreb, and when a common noun, particularly when plural, but more likely to have /O/ when it's part of a name (eg 'Bodmin Moor' normally has /O/ for me).
Both those nouns are normally /O/ for most people I know. 'Sure', however, is more likely to be /U@/, but can still be reduced to /O/ - I use /U@/ when emphasised but /O/ in more casual speech - that's not affected, that's just how I speak. And then you have words like 'tour', where the older vowel is widely retained, and I never use /O/ there. Although some people do shift it toward /u@/. Similarly with 'lure'. 'Dour', on the other hand, is widely realised as /aU@/, though I retain /U@/.
As far as I can tell, I've already monophthongised all the diphthongs ending in /ə/. In casual speech, I normally have [ɔ:] for /ʊə/, but in careful speech and certain words, it's usually more like [ʊ:] With /aʊə/, the same thing again happens, but this time it's always /aʊ:/.
Salmoneus wrote:Another example from my own dialect: the loss of /U@/. Other than following /j/, when it tends to head in the direction of /u@/, it otherwise tends to merge with /O/. But this varies word-by-word. "Poor" and "moor" are usually now with /O/ - although in both cases I have variation, partly as a result of an intention wish to retain the phoneme (which is not bizarre, I hasten to add - it's still around within SSBE and widespread outside of it). So I normally have /pO/ in casual speech, but /pU@/ in more precise speech - I'm more often to retain /U@/ when the meaning is 'without wealth' and definitely when it is used as a noun ('the poor'), and more likely to have /O/ when the meaning is 'unfortunate'. With 'moor', I have /U@/ when the meaning from the maghreb, and when a common noun, particularly when plural, but more likely to have /O/ when it's part of a name (eg 'Bodmin Moor' normally has /O/ for me).
Both those nouns are normally /O/ for most people I know. 'Sure', however, is more likely to be /U@/, but can still be reduced to /O/ - I use /U@/ when emphasised but /O/ in more casual speech - that's not affected, that's just how I speak. And then you have words like 'tour', where the older vowel is widely retained, and I never use /O/ there. Although some people do shift it toward /u@/. Similarly with 'lure'. 'Dour', on the other hand, is widely realised as /aU@/, though I retain /U@/.
As far as I can tell, I've already monophthongised all the diphthongs ending in /ə/. In casual speech, I normally have [ɔ:] for /ʊə/, but in careful speech and certain words, it's usually more like [ʊ:] With /aʊə/, the same thing again happens, but this time it's always /aʊ:/.
For me, /U@/ is often in practice monophthongal [U:] (sort of, it's not quite the same quality as short /U/), except after /j/ or /l/.
/aU@/, however, is for me either [aU@] or [a:]. It's hard for me to imagine [aU:]...
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!
vokzhen wrote:Interesting, 400 miles southeast of you, I maintain a cot-caught as [a ɒ] except I only have [ɒ] before /l/.
That makes sense, people in Iowa and southern Minnesota generally maintain the caught-cot distinction.
vokzhen wrote:Meanwhile, I have [ər] in words like card, bard, guard, carve, and [ɑr] in car, bar, gar, but also in chard (a leaf vegetable), starve, and Mars. If Wiktionary's rhyme lists are complete, those three are the only words ending in -ArC that haven't made the shift to [ər], except in derivations (bard/barred have different vowels).
Salmoneus wrote:Another example from my own dialect: the loss of /U@/. Other than following /j/, when it tends to head in the direction of /u@/, it otherwise tends to merge with /O/. But this varies word-by-word. "Poor" and "moor" are usually now with /O/ - although in both cases I have variation, partly as a result of an intention wish to retain the phoneme (which is not bizarre, I hasten to add - it's still around within SSBE and widespread outside of it). So I normally have /pO/ in casual speech, but /pU@/ in more precise speech - I'm more often to retain /U@/ when the meaning is 'without wealth' and definitely when it is used as a noun ('the poor'), and more likely to have /O/ when the meaning is 'unfortunate'. With 'moor', I have /U@/ when the meaning from the maghreb, and when a common noun, particularly when plural, but more likely to have /O/ when it's part of a name (eg 'Bodmin Moor' normally has /O/ for me).
Both those nouns are normally /O/ for most people I know. 'Sure', however, is more likely to be /U@/, but can still be reduced to /O/ - I use /U@/ when emphasised but /O/ in more casual speech - that's not affected, that's just how I speak. And then you have words like 'tour', where the older vowel is widely retained, and I never use /O/ there. Although some people do shift it toward /u@/. Similarly with 'lure'. 'Dour', on the other hand, is widely realised as /aU@/, though I retain /U@/.
In my speech /ʊɹ/ has merged with /ɔɹ/ unconditionally.
vokzhen wrote:Meanwhile, I have [ər] in words like card, bard, guard, carve, and [ɑr] in car, bar, gar, but also in chard (a leaf vegetable), starve, and Mars. If Wiktionary's rhyme lists are complete, those three are the only words ending in -ArC that haven't made the shift to [ər], except in derivations (bard/barred have different vowels).
Wait, carve rhymes with curve for you?
Nope. I have a three-way distinction between r-colored /ɚ/, the back vowel /ɑr/ largely limited to open syllables, and a Canadian-raising-liked /ər/ limited to closed syllables (might be more traditionally written /ʌr/ or something, but it's pretty much identical to my /ə/ and /ʌ/ as [ə]).
I have ai-raising before all /-dər/. Are there people with [spəi̯ɾər] but [sai̯ɾər]?
That could be an example of expansion of an existing sound change to new environments, but probably not of irregularity. Same with raising in 'hydrogen', if there are people who have that.
Doesn't Michigan have ai-raising before rhotics? [fəi̯jɚ] and so on.
birds aren't real wrote:I have ai-raising before all /-dər/. Are there people with [spəi̯ɾər] but [sai̯ɾər]?
I suppose you're referring to spider and cider? I pronounce both of those with [ai], even though I usually only have [ai] before voiced fricatives and r. It can't be to do with the d though because I also have an exceptional [ai] in library.
Salmoneus wrote:Another example from my own dialect: the loss of /U@/. Other than following /j/, when it tends to head in the direction of /u@/, it otherwise tends to merge with /O/. But this varies word-by-word. "Poor" and "moor" are usually now with /O/ - although in both cases I have variation, partly as a result of an intention wish to retain the phoneme (which is not bizarre, I hasten to add - it's still around within SSBE and widespread outside of it). So I normally have /pO/ in casual speech, but /pU@/ in more precise speech - I'm more often to retain /U@/ when the meaning is 'without wealth' and definitely when it is used as a noun ('the poor'), and more likely to have /O/ when the meaning is 'unfortunate'. With 'moor', I have /U@/ when the meaning from the maghreb, and when a common noun, particularly when plural, but more likely to have /O/ when it's part of a name (eg 'Bodmin Moor' normally has /O/ for me).
Both those nouns are normally /O/ for most people I know. 'Sure', however, is more likely to be /U@/, but can still be reduced to /O/ - I use /U@/ when emphasised but /O/ in more casual speech - that's not affected, that's just how I speak. And then you have words like 'tour', where the older vowel is widely retained, and I never use /O/ there. Although some people do shift it toward /u@/. Similarly with 'lure'. 'Dour', on the other hand, is widely realised as /aU@/, though I retain /U@/.
In my speech /ʊɹ/ has merged with /ɔɹ/ unconditionally.
What happens to /jur/? (For me it varies between [j@r] and [jor], usually the former.)
Nortaneous wrote:"Recognize" without /g/ strikes me as an AAVE thing, but there are a lot of things that strike me as AAVE things that are probably just not as conservative as what I'd say. (Do white people say "put it up" for "put it away"?)
I might say [ɹæ̃ː], but not when I'm paying attention -- it's [ɹæ̃ːɞ̯nd] or so in isolation. (I'm still not sure how to transcribe that diphthong, but it's not [au̯] at all. The first element is [æ], and the second is something like a rounded schwa.)
I'd say 'put up' and 'put away' are both fine, but there's some kind of semantic difference between them that I'm not sure of right now. I think it has to do with the kind of object involved. When you say "Do white people say 'put it up' for 'put it away'" do you mean '[most white people don't say "put it up" for any kind of whatever and] AAVE speakers usually say "put it up" for most whatevers.' or do you mean something similar to what I'm saying--that both are possible in non-AAVE speech but AAVE speakers merge them?
