Austin!Zaarin wrote:Where in the South are you familiar with?
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Austin!Zaarin wrote:Where in the South are you familiar with?
But is it pharyngealization, that's the question!jmcd wrote:That's interesting. Perhaps just use the normal velarisation and pharyngealisation marks? If it is pharyngealisation in codas.
Yeah, a Texas accent is a completely different animal than a Deep South accent.Vijay wrote:Austin!Zaarin wrote:Where in the South are you familiar with?
Is it a pharyngealized lateral in the onset and a coarticulated coronal-pharyngeal in the coda? Mine is either uvular or upper pharyngeal, and onset uvularization feels lighter/secondary while coda uvularization feels like it's the primary POA with light, incidental coronal contact.thetha wrote:But is it pharyngealization, that's the question!jmcd wrote:That's interesting. Perhaps just use the normal velarisation and pharyngealisation marks? If it is pharyngealisation in codas.
My instinct/impression is something like this but with such a complex phone I'm hesitant to make any particularly specific descriptions without actually measuring it. That is, I would agree that in the onset the alveolar contact is primary, while in the coda (and often intervocalically) it's secondary.vokzhen wrote:Is it a pharyngealized lateral in the onset and a coarticulated coronal-pharyngeal in the coda? Mine is either uvular or upper pharyngeal, and onset uvularization feels lighter/secondary while coda uvularization feels like it's the primary POA with light, incidental coronal contact.thetha wrote:But is it pharyngealization, that's the question!jmcd wrote:That's interesting. Perhaps just use the normal velarisation and pharyngealisation marks? If it is pharyngealisation in codas.
What about FL then?Zaarin wrote:Where in the South are you familiar with? In my experience there are, broadly speaking, four Southern accents: Texas/Oklahoma, Louisiana*, Upper South (Virginia, Maryland, Tennessee, North Carolina, etc.), and Deep South (Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, chiefly). What I was describing is absolutely a feature of Deep South and lower registers of Upper South, but not of Texas or Louisiana or of higher registers of Upper South.
*By which I mean non-Cajun Louisiana, which is its own accent...
7/10 Floridians are from New York, Michigan, or Ontario; another 2/10 are still from somewhere other than Florida. The few native Floridians I know have an accent that's closer to what you'd find in the American Heartland with a few Southernisms mixed in. (Citation: I currently live in Florida.)Io wrote:What about FL then?Zaarin wrote:Where in the South are you familiar with? In my experience there are, broadly speaking, four Southern accents: Texas/Oklahoma, Louisiana*, Upper South (Virginia, Maryland, Tennessee, North Carolina, etc.), and Deep South (Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, chiefly). What I was describing is absolutely a feature of Deep South and lower registers of Upper South, but not of Texas or Louisiana or of higher registers of Upper South.
*By which I mean non-Cajun Louisiana, which is its own accent...
Un jour dans l'avenir, parce que tous les cabinets sera occupé en un cycle incessant par des immigrants de l'Inde que auront appris les secrets des toilettes, et ainsi comme une solution les Français auront commencé à déféqué sur le sol quand ils auraient dû construit plus de toilettes, en les salles magnifiques du Louvre, la mer de la merde aura inondé à partout les étages.Vijay wrote:The only time I've ever heard Americans (or maybe even English-speakers in general) say "Louvre," I swear it sounded exactly the same as "loo."Pole, the wrote:Wait, are Louisville and Louvre homophones in that dialect?Viktor77 wrote:I just returned from a trip to Louisville, Kentucky, and now I'm wondering if I'll sound pretentious if I pronounce Louisville as natives do, something like /luː.ə.vɚ/ or /luːvɚ/
Didn't know it sounds so official and artificial!finlay wrote:Not a mistake - many people don't have these, or don't always have them - but you run the risk of sounding like a newscaster from the 50s.
(Scottish?)finlay wrote:People don't always devoice their voiced stops, but everyone aspirates their voiceless stops, so if you don't do that, you sound French or Dutch.
What finlay said. If your vowels are American but you don't flap, I'll know immediately you're foreign. Even non-native speakers of American English do this. I'm less sensitised to debuccalisation.ˈd̪ʲɛ.gɔ kɾuˑl̪ wrote:So, anyone else?
Another thing I hear, which I do especially a lot (even though I am rather odd about this), is simply eliding unstressed intervocalic /t d n nt nd/ at every odd distance from a stress (aside for effect on vowel length and nasalization).linguoboy wrote:What finlay said. If your vowels are American but you don't flap, I'll know immediately you're foreign. Even non-native speakers of American English do this. I'm less sensitised to debuccalisation.ˈd̪ʲɛ.gɔ kɾuˑl̪ wrote:So, anyone else?
I've seen the claim before that [ɾ] can be freely deleted in casual speech. I'm not convinced that it's always possible, but it's hard to self-test perception in this area.Travis B. wrote:Another thing I hear, which I do especially a lot (even though I am rather odd about this), is simply eliding unstressed intervocalic /t d n nt nd/ at every odd distance from a stress (aside for effect on vowel length and nasalization).
What I notice that seems to indicate that this really is not me being weird is that no one from around here has trouble understanding me even when I quite aggressively elide in this fashion.linguoboy wrote:I've seen the claim before that [ɾ] can be freely deleted in casual speech. I'm not convinced that it's always possible, but it's hard to self-test perception in this area.Travis B. wrote:Another thing I hear, which I do especially a lot (even though I am rather odd about this), is simply eliding unstressed intervocalic /t d n nt nd/ at every odd distance from a stress (aside for effect on vowel length and nasalization).
I don't think partially voiced consonants are really necessary. It's certainly fine to use fully-voiced consonants intervocalically or in other situations where the consonant is surrounded by voiced segments on both sides (e.g. the "g" of "pilgrim"). It's also fine word-initially--even native speakers have variability here, and not all of them devoice consonants that much in this position. Word-finally, I think devoicing is more common, but not devoicing shouldn't hurt understandability as long as you correctly apply the English rules of vowel-length allophony: use longer allophones before voiced consonants, and shorter allophones before voiceless consonants. The only issue I think that might arise from not devoicing or glottalizing coda consonants as much as a native speaker is that native English speakers might hear the release of the consonant as a schwa, perhaps.ˈd̪ʲɛ.gɔ kɾuˑl̪ wrote:Thanks for current posts. I'm still worried about glottalization and devoicing since I have difficulty with hearing glottal stop and producing partially voiced consonants. Could native speakers tell more about it?
Certainly not a mistake, just a foreign accent and they're lovely. If your consonants sound a bit unusual, it's OK. And for what it's worth, the things that usually sound the most foreign to me in terms of stops are when people don't aspirate voiceless stops in the right places, or when people don't make a distinction between final voiced and voiceless stops (e.g. pick, pig). Also, a dental /t/ and /d/ gives it away for me too. Fully voicing your voiced stops is fine and as far as I can tell, what I usually do. Don't go too far with devoicing. I used to teach a lot of Korean students and when some of them said my name, Ben, it sounded like Pen to me. For me, final voiceless stops are simply unreleased without a following vowel and as far as I can tell, not strongly glottalised, if at all. There are so many possibilities in English - even ejectives as final consonants so if your accent is overall good (vowels. intonation, rhythm, aspiration all correct) then I doubt that a lack of flapping or glottalisation will be the giveaway... maybe if your vowels are really American.ˈd̪ʲɛ.gɔ kɾuˑl̪ wrote:"What if my full voicing of voiced stops and not making use of glottalization and flapping is considered in Anglophone world a very big mistake?"
Yeah, I don't think a lot of that about devoicing applies to AusE, certainly not that bit that I've just quoted about /dʒ/. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that we have a lot of phonemic length contrasts in our vowels (five long and short vowel pairs, although one has no minimal pairs, and an additional sixth pair which is not exact but pretty close) which leaves less room for vowel length to tell us about consonants. Post-tonic, intervocalic /t/ and /d/ are not distinguished except in pedantically clear speech. There's a pub in a Paddington in Brisbane called the Paddington Tavern and everyone calls it the "Paddo", and before I went there and saw the sign, I had always thought it was the "Patto". I never thought about it being connected to "Paddington" - it's pronounced exactly like the nickname of a guy in my high school, Patto, whose last name was Patterson, so in my head it was a /t/. Latter and ladder are the same. An Aussie friend of mine recently said he didn't know if a short tune was a "ditty" or a "diddy" because he's never seen it written.Travis B wrote:One note is that /dʒ/ is always [tʃ], even when unstressed intervocalic, where it is distinguished from /tʃ/ by vowel length alone.
I would take all this with a grain of salt; this is just how I am used to people here speaking.
I used to have a very hard time with accents that do not roughly fit the phonology I outlined above. A lack of aspiration would wildly throw me off, and a lack of proper vowel length allophony would greatly confuse me, especially without proper preglottalization or non-release. I basically would not hear voiceless-voiced contrasts except in unstressed intervocalic positions. I basically needed aspiration and vowel length allophony to understand people, and preglottalization helped reinforce that. I did not need strong vowel length allophony, and non-release could take the place of preglottalization. So hence while I could understand English English fine, Indian English was essentially unintelligible to me.ˈd̪ʲɛ.gɔ kɾuˑl̪ wrote:"What if my full voicing of voiced stops and not making use of glottalization and flapping is considered in Anglophone world a very big mistake?"