The "How do You Pronounce X" Thread

[Travis B.]

Here is a recording of me saying "beat, bead, bit, bid", the first monosyllabic words I could think of sharing an onset which differed by both /iː/ versus /ɪ/ and a fortis coda versus a lenis coda.

The spectrogram is as follows:

[Travis B.]

Here is a recording of me saying "lease, sees, beast, Liz, sis, pissed", as originally asked about.

The spectrogram is as follows:

[CatDoom]

In that first one it sounds (to me at least) like you're aspirating your word-final /t/s. Is that a normal thing in your speech, or is it because you're pronouncing them particularly carefully?

Mine are normally unreleased, unless they come before a word that phonetically begins in a vowel or (at least sometimes) the semivowel /j/, in which case it's flapped or palatalized, as in "bet him" [b̥ɛɾɪm] and "bet ya" [b̥ɛtʃə].

[Travis B.]

In that first one it sounds (to me at least) like you're aspirating your word-final /t/s. Is that a normal thing in your speech, or is it because you're pronouncing them particularly carefully?

Mine are normally unreleased, unless they come before a word that phonetically begins in a vowel or (at least sometimes) the semivowel /j/, in which case it's flapped or palatalized, as in "bet him" [b̥ɛɾɪm] and "bet ya" [b̥ɛtʃə].

Those are actually /d/s being realized as [tʰ]. I am realizing my final /t/s as [ʔ]. (Note the words below the spectrogram.)

This is because I have final devoicing of obstruents in words not followed in the same utterance by vowels or some other sonorants. (I did not really realize I actually aspirated devoiced final /d/ though.)

[finlay]

Okay, I was of course being facetious asking for a spectrogram, but it's interesting to actually see it. (thanks! )

The reason I ask, I think, is that nominally I don't have a length distinction in my native-sounding speech (but I do when teaching basically) - but I never lengthen the "short" vowels, so "Liz" and "list" have the same length vowel, I think. As far as I know that's normal in scotland. So maybe I do have a length distinction. Anyway, this all came up because someone - I think you - complained that someone was using length marks in a phonemic transcription. Just let it be, god.

[Travis B.]

If one has vowel length allophony for historical long vowels (e.g. they can be realized as long or short) but not for historical short vowels (e.g. they can only be realized as short), then one still has phonemic vowel length.

Anyways, I was not complaining about someone marking historical vowel length in transcriptions, I just found it interesting because if it were accurate it meant that their variety of NAE still retained historical phonemic vowel length (which, to my knowledge, most of NAE, minus some dialects on the East Coast, has lost)..

[Atrulfal]

How do you pronounce “canyon” and “Enya”?

[Travis B.]

canyon: /ˈkænjən/ [ˈkʰɛ̃ː(n)jɘ̃(ː)(n)]
Enya: /ˈɛnjə/ [ˈɜ̃ː(n)jə(ː)]

[Zaarin]

Canyon [ˈkʰænjən]
Enya [ˈɛnjə].

[ol bofosh]

canyon [ˈkʰænʲ.jən]
Enya [ˈɛnʲ.jɜ]
Onion [ˈɐnʲ.jən]

This is more or less how I pronounce Spanish <ñ>, since "onion" was the example I was given, and I've practiced it like that ever since.
año would be more or less [ˈanʲ.jo], whilst anio (invented word) would be [ˈan.jo] (perhaps [ˈa.njo] if I were more careful), so not entirely guiri-fied.

[vokzhen]

canyon [kʰeən.jɨn]
Enya [ɛn.jə]
Both /n/s are laminal alveolar, with the tongue tip almost touching the back of the upper teeth.
Onion, though... [əŋ.jɨn]

[KathTheDragon]

Onion, though... [əŋ.jɨn]

Velar? Really?

[vokzhen]

Yes. I've heard people bring it up before, for example on Wiktionary and Wikipedia's Language Reference Desk.

[jmcd]

The Scots word is 'ingin'. The older palatal nasal (written nȝ or later nz) often turned into a velar nasal. That pronunciation may well come from there.

[schyrsivochter]

canyon /kæn.jən/ [kæ̞n.jən]
Enya /ɛn.jə/ [ɛn.jɜ]
onion /ʌn.jən/ [ɐn.jən]

Edit: Perhaps I was tired when I wrote that; it should be this:
Enya /ʔɛn.jə/ [ʔɛn.jɜ]
onion /ʔʌn.jən/ [ʔɐn.jən]
canyon /kæn.jən/ [kʰæ̞n.jən]

[jal]

canyon /kæn.jən/ [kæ̞n.jən]

I'd find it implausible that a German would not aspirate an initial k.


JAL

[Viktor77]

canyon /kæn.jən/ [kæ̞n.jən]
Enya /ɛn.jə/ [ɛn.jɜ]
onion /ʌn.jən/ [ɐn.jən]

I don't want to be that guy, but I don't really see what benefit a foreign speaker of English brings to the discussion.

[jal]

I don't want to be that guy, but I don't really see what benefit a foreign speaker of English brings to the discussion.

Haha, that guy or not, I totally agree with you :).


JAL

[schyrsivochter]

canyon /kæn.jən/ [kæ̞n.jən]

I'd find it implausible that a German would not aspirate an initial k.


JAL

Of course, me too. I simply forgot the ʰ, thank you. I’ve edited it.

I don't want to be that guy, but I don't really see what benefit a foreign speaker of English brings to the discussion.

Please give me reasons why I shouldn’t be participating. The original post didn’t say anything about English as a second language.

[Viktor77]

I don't want to be that guy, but I don't really see what benefit a foreign speaker of English brings to the discussion.

Please give me reasons why I shouldn’t be participating. The original post didn’t say anything about English as a second language.

In my humble opinion it's implied. If I were doing a study of English, whether it be some phonetic variation or even a grammatically judgement, I would explicitly state that all participants must be native speakers of English (unless I had some goal aimed at measuring second language speakers). Likewise, I speak good French but I would never participate in a study asking how I pronounce a word in French. I don't think I need to go into why someone wouldn't ask a non-native speaker to participate in a study like this.

Now if we asked how to say a German word, you would be welcome to participate and I would be ineligible.

[KathTheDragon]

I don't want to be that guy, but I don't really see what benefit a foreign speaker of English brings to the discussion.

Please give me reasons why I shouldn’t be participating. The original post didn’t say anything about English as a second language.

In my humble opinion it's implied. If I were doing a study of English, whether it be some phonetic variation or even a grammatically judgement, I would explicitly state that all participants must be native speakers of English (unless I had some goal aimed at measuring second language speakers). Likewise, I speak good French but I would never participate in a study asking how I pronounce a word in French. I don't think I need to go into why someone wouldn't ask a non-native speaker to participate in a study like this.

Now if we asked how to say a German word, you would be welcome to participate and I would be ineligible.

Except sometimes you're not actually interested in how native speakers say something, but how non-native speakers have learnt the word. I know this happens because I've done it. So, really, I don't see a benefit to excluding non-native speakers.

[Travis B.]

We are not doing a study here, and everyone knows who the non-native speakers are in the first place, so I do not see any reason to exclude non-native speakers. Anyways, as Kath said, it may be interesting seeing how non-native speakers have learned various words.

[ol bofosh]

Ditto, foreign-speakers are a-okay. Kay?

[jal]

It seems the concensus then that EFL speakers are welcome to contribute.


JAL

[Viktor77]

It seems the concensus then that EFL speakers are welcome to contribute.

Alrighty then. I rest my case.