The "How do You Pronounce X" Thread

[finlay]

However, in these cases here it is clear that these are indeed /tʃr/ and not /tr/ despite my pronouncing the two identically.

How is it "clear" whether it's one or the other if you pronounce them "identically"? Or is this more sort of in comparison with your peers?

[tezcatlip0ca]

Is there a superscript esh with curl anywhere in Unicode?

Is there a superscript esh with curl anywhere in Universe?

Yes, I need it to transcribe a voiceless postalveolopalatal plosive with fricative release and added retroflexion that I have in century.

[makvas]

factory: /ˈfɛktʃəri/ > [ˈfɛʔk̚tɕʁ̩ˤːʁˤi(ː)]
factorial: /fɛkˈtɔriəl/ > [fɛʔk̚ˈtʰɔːʁˤjɯ̞(ː)] or, carefully, [fɛʔk̚ˈtʰɔːʁˤiːɯ̞(ː)]

Do you have the trek-track merger? I have some cousins from ND who have this (/æ/ merges to /ɛ/ in all positions).

[Travis B.]

However, in these cases here it is clear that these are indeed /tʃr/ and not /tr/ despite my pronouncing the two identically.

How is it "clear" whether it's one or the other if you pronounce them "identically"? Or is this more sort of in comparison with your peers?

It is because the /tʃ/ in these cases remains an affricate even when it is separated from the /r/ by /ə/, synchronically; also, diachronically it in some of these cases arose from historical /tj/ rather than from being part of a /tr/ cluster.

However, in forms involving /tʃər/ from /tər/ where the /tʃ/ does not clearly come from /tj/, one could make the argument that these could have been contracted to /tr/ resulting in affrication, and then split apart again into /tʃər/ without the affrication being lost. To see just what is going on here would require more work, though, especially since in my dialect alveolopalatal /t/, which can be conditioned by a following /ər/ amongst other things like a following /w/, /u/, or /ʊ/, does already have a tendency to become an affricate when preceding a vowel and when stressed or at least when some other kind of flapping, elision, or assimilation are not in play.

[Travis B.]

factory: /ˈfɛktʃəri/ > [ˈfɛʔk̚tɕʁ̩ˤːʁˤi(ː)]
factorial: /fɛkˈtɔriəl/ > [fɛʔk̚ˈtʰɔːʁˤjɯ̞(ː)] or, carefully, [fɛʔk̚ˈtʰɔːʁˤiːɯ̞(ː)]

Do you have the trek-track merger? I have some cousins from ND who have this (/æ/ merges to /ɛ/ in all positions).

No, this is simply part of the NCVS; historical /æ/ and /ɛ/ are merely chain-shifted here to my synchronic phonemes /ɛ/ and /ɜ/, respectively, with the synchronic /ɛ/ sometimes becoming rising opening diphthongs like [e̯ɛ] when stressed but much of the time just being simply [ɛ].

[ratammer]

Wow, I was thinking of contributing to this thread, but judging by the transcriptions here I can't go into anywhere near the expected level of detail... I guess I'll record my voice when I get the chance and just let anyone who's interested "analyse" it...

[finlay]

Wow, I was thinking of contributing to this thread, but judging by the transcriptions here I can't go into anywhere near the expected level of detail... I guess I'll record my voice when I get the chance and just let anyone who's interested "analyse" it...

Hey, don't be put off. Just give a phonemic one if you're not up for the obsessive level of detail that the rest of us are going into.

[Travis B.]

Okay, here are my other past transcriptions in this thread, but with similar phonemic transcriptions added:

closer as in nearer: /ˈklosər/ > [ˈkʰʟ̞os̻ʁ̩ˤ(ː)]~[ˈkʰɰos̻ʁ̩ˤ(ː)]
closer as in a baseball pitcher: /ˈklozər/ > [ˈkʰʟ̞oːz̻ʁ̩ˤ(ː)]~[ˈkʰɰoːz̻ʁ̩ˤ(ː)]
cuneiform: /ˈkjuniˌfɔrm/ > [ˈk̟ʰj̠ũː(n)iˌfɔ(ː)ʁˤm]
hair: /ˈher/ > [ˈhɛ̝(ː)ʁˤ]
her: /ˈ(h)ər/ > [ˈ(h)ʁ̩ˤ(ː)] (independent), /ər/ > [ʁ̩ˤ(ː)] (clitic)
heir: /ˈer/ > [ˈɛ̝(ː)ʁˤ]
home (verb): /ˈhom/ > [ˈho(ː)m]
home (noun): /ˈhom/ > [ˈho(ː)m] or sometimes, particularly when less stressed in informal speech, /ˈom/ > [ˈo(ː)m]
coordinate (noun): /ˈk(w)ɔrdɪnɪt/ > [ˈkʰ(w)ɔːʁˤ(d)ɨ̃ːnɨʔ]~[ˈkʰ(w)ɔ̂ːʁˤnːɨʔ], carefully also /koˈwɔrdɪnɪt/ > [kʰoːˈwɔːʁˤ(d)ɨ̃ːnɨʔ]~[ˈkʰoːˈwɔ̂ːʁˤnːɨʔ] ~ /kəˈwɔrdɪnɪt/ > [kʰəːˈwɔːʁˤ(d)ɨ̃ːnɨʔ]~[ˈkʰəːˈwɔ̂ːʁˤnːɨʔ] (the separate phonemic transcriptions for the careful pronunciations with differing vowels is because vowel reduction is not predictable in this initial syllable, as it does not necessarily affect all cases of co- here)
coordinate (verb): /ˈkwɔrdɪˌnet/ > [ˈkʰwɔːʁˤ(d)ɨ̃ːˌneʔ]~[ˈkʰwɔ̂ːʁˤnˌneʔ], carefully also /koˈwɔrdɪˌnet/ > [kʰoːˈwɔːʁˤ(d)ɨ̃ːˌneʔ]~[ˈkʰoːˈwɔ̂ːʁˤnˌneʔ] ~ /kəˈwɔrdɪˌnet/ > [kʰəːˈwɔːʁˤ(d)ɨ̃ːˌneʔ]~[ˈkʰəːˈwɔ̂ːʁˤnˌneʔ] (the separate phonemic transcriptions for the careful pronunciations with differing vowels is because vowel reduction is not predictable in this initial syllable, as it does not necessarily affect all cases of co- here)
laboratory: /ˈlɛbrəˌtɔri/ > [ˈʟ̞ɛːbɰˤəˌtʰɔːʁˤi(ː)]~[ˈɰɛːbɰˤəˌtʰɔːʁˤi(ː)]
year: /ˈjɪr/ > [ˈjɪ(ː)ʁˤ]
quart: /ˈkwɔrt/ > [ˈkʰwɔʁˤʔ]
quarter: /ˈkwɔrtər/ > [ˈkʰwɔʁˤ(ɾ̥)ʁ̩ˤ(ː)]
mirror: /ˈmɪr/ > [ˈmɪ(ː)ʁˤ]
near: /ˈnɪr/ > [ˈnɪ(ː)ʁˤ]
nearer: /ˈnɪrər/ > [ˈnɪːʁˤʁ̩ˤ(ː)]
irrespective: /ɪrrɪˈspɜktɪv/ > [ɪːʁˤːɨˈs̻pɜʔk̚tɨːf]
irresponsible: /ɪrrɪˈspansɪbəl/ > [ɪːʁˤːɨˈs̻pãntsɨːbɯ̞(ː)]
irrational: /ɪrˈrɛʃɪnəl/ > [ɪːʁˤˈʁˤɛʃɨ̃ːnɯ̞(ː)]
irrevocable: /ɪrˈrɜvəkəbəl/ > [ɪːʁˤˈʁˤɜːvəɡ̊əːbɯ̞(ː)]
irradiate: /ɪrˈrediˌet/ > [ɪːʁˤˈʁˤeːɾiːˌeʔ]~[ɪːʁˤˈʁˤeːjːˌeʔ]
iridescent: /ɪrɪˈdɜsɪnt/ > [ɪːʁˤɨːˈdɜsɨ̃ʔ]
irritate: /ɪrɪˈtet/ > [ɪːʁˤɨˈtʰeʔ]

[Travis B.]

Wow, I was thinking of contributing to this thread, but judging by the transcriptions here I can't go into anywhere near the expected level of detail... I guess I'll record my voice when I get the chance and just let anyone who's interested "analyse" it...

As finlay said, you really do not have to do anything quite as detailed as what many of us have been doing here. And anyways, even a somewhat less detailed transcription is still quite a bit more useful than a recording would be. (Interpreting recordings is much harder than it sounds, and getting any idea at all from them requires actually listening to them, which takes much longer than reading the equivalent and which many probably simply won't do.)

[finlay]

Just to be picky again, could you possibly make it a darker shade of red so that it's easier to read? At the moment it's a bit garish.

[Travis B.]

Just to be picky again, could you possibly make it a darker shade of red so that it's easier to read? At the moment it's a bit garish.

Changed. That better?

[finlay]

yeah

[Travis B.]

Aigh, these phonemic transcriptions of mine bother me... They work perfectly well for normal words... as long as you do not give a fuck about frequencies of different forms that ought to be predictable in theory (but are not in practice)... and they completely go to hell when you consider contracted forms, common grammar words, specific other common words, and interjections. They are so neat and nice-looking, yet obviously correspond to a toy phonology underneath it all...

[finlay]

That doesn't really matter, since to some extent all phonemic transcriptions are that. Don't worry about it too much, I just quite want a less dense version that represents your mental pronunciation in a more readable fashion. Because the detailed phonetic ones are interesting, sure, but they're less readable. For example, I didn't realise until you did the broader one that you stress a different syllable on 'irrevocable' than I do (I say irrevócable, but you say irrévocable) – the information is in the narrow transcription, but it's hidden between several other markings.

[Travis B.]

That doesn't really matter, since to some extent all phonemic transcriptions are that. Don't worry about it too much, I just quite want a less dense version that represents your mental pronunciation in a more readable fashion. Because the detailed phonetic ones are interesting, sure, but they're less readable. For example, I didn't realise until you did the broader one that you stress a different syllable on 'irrevocable' than I do (I say irrevócable, but you say irrévocable) – the information is in the narrow transcription, but it's hidden between several other markings.

I know. It is still a bit bothersome, though, when things show up in phonetic transcriptions that seemingly should not be from the phonemic ones, yet are. For instance, with respect to irrevocable, I honestly do not know why it is [ɪːʁˤˈʁˤɜːvəɡ̊əːbɯ̞(ː)] rather than the [ɪːʁˤˈʁˤɜːvəkəːbɯ̞(ː)] I would normally expect from /ɪrˈrɜvəkəbəl/, with green marking strongly stressed syllables and blue marking weakly stressed syllables. (Contrast, say, malachite, /ˈmɛləkəe̯t/ > [ˈmɛːɤ̯əkə̆ĕ̯ʔ], which has the pattern I would expect here.)

Normally my dialect defaults to a stress pattern where seemingly non-phonemic stresses are inserted in words so as to try to maintain a pattern of alternating stressed and unstressed syllables, except for generally at least somewhat stressing initial syllables except for ones that are commonly elided, e.g. in grammar words, regardless of their position relative to the nearest phonemic stress. This is clear even when it otherwise would not be, e.g. such inserted stresses often block elisions that would otherwise take place.

Yet in irrevocable /k/ does not get the stress that would be expected, and hence is lenited when it would not be expected, unlike in malachite, which follows the expected pattern.

In this case, the only thing I can think of that would explain it in anything close to a traditional, generative-ish phonemic model is if the suffix -able were somehow phonemically unstressed, i.e. that it would not receive stress automatically when applicable as normal syllables in the body of a word would but rather would remain unstressed even when it would allow two or more unstressed syllables to be adjacent to one another. While this feels like I am just pulling an explanation out of thin air, I can think of no better one.

[finlay]

I've just noticed I tend to say [mɑɫɐkʌɪʔ] with ɑ – I think this must be some kind of allophonic thing I have before /l/. I remember asking how people say "alphabet" and I was the only one that said [ɑɫ]phabet rather than /æl/phabet – I think this is maybe because I don't really have a proper opposition between [æ~a~ɑ] IMD. I'm not really sure if I do this in real speech or if I'm exaggerating it here.

So yeah, let's repeat that: how do you guys pronounce
malachite and
alphabet?

(for me,
[ˈmɑɫɐkʌɪʔ]~[mɑɫəkəɪʔ] and
[ˈɑɫfəbɛʔ]~[ˈɑʊfəbɛʔ])

[AnTeallach]

I've just noticed I tend to say [mɑɫɐkʌɪʔ] with ɑ – I think this must be some kind of allophonic thing I have before /l/. I remember asking how people say "alphabet" and I was the only one that said [ɑɫ]phabet rather than /æl/phabet – I think this is maybe because I don't really have a proper opposition between [æ~a~ɑ] IMD. I'm not really sure if I do this in real speech or if I'm exaggerating it here.

So yeah, let's repeat that: how do you guys pronounce
malachite and
alphabet?

(for me,
[ˈmɑɫɐkʌɪʔ]~[mɑɫəkəɪʔ] and
[ˈɑɫfəbɛʔ]~[ˈɑʊfəbɛʔ])

[ˈmaləkaɪt] and [ˈaɫfəbɛt]. (Just to be clear, [a] is the TRAP/BATH vowel here.)

As I think I've said before, I've noticed an apparent [ɑ] allophone of TRAP before /l/ from people with the sort of accent I call "Morningside" (i.e. a type of partially Anglicised posh Edinburgh accent). They also have it before voiceless fricatives, giving something of the impression of the trap-bath split, but based on your "Stella" recording you don't have that. (Some of them may have a genuine RP-influenced phonemic split, and also a tendency towards [æ] in TRAP words.)

Oddly, I've also noticed the back vowel before /l/ in at least one Bristolian; that's also an area where the TRAP/PALM opposition is doubtful.

[äreo]

[mæɫəkɑe̯ʔ]
[æo̯fəbɛ̝ʔ]

[tezcatlip0ca]

Wow, I was thinking of contributing to this thread, but judging by the transcriptions here I can't go into anywhere near the expected level of detail... I guess I'll record my voice when I get the chance and just let anyone who's interested "analyse" it...

Hey, don't be put off. Just give a phonemic one if you're not up for the obsessive level of detail that the rest of us are going into.

Seconded. And don't worry. My extremely detailed transcriptions usually take thirty seconds to compose if you know how (the problem is searching for the necessary Unicode codepoints).

[finlay]

I've just noticed I tend to say [mɑɫɐkʌɪʔ] with ɑ – I think this must be some kind of allophonic thing I have before /l/. I remember asking how people say "alphabet" and I was the only one that said [ɑɫ]phabet rather than /æl/phabet – I think this is maybe because I don't really have a proper opposition between [æ~a~ɑ] IMD. I'm not really sure if I do this in real speech or if I'm exaggerating it here.

So yeah, let's repeat that: how do you guys pronounce
malachite and
alphabet?

(for me,
[ˈmɑɫɐkʌɪʔ]~[mɑɫəkəɪʔ] and
[ˈɑɫfəbɛʔ]~[ˈɑʊfəbɛʔ])

[ˈmaləkaɪt] and [ˈaɫfəbɛt]. (Just to be clear, [a] is the TRAP/BATH vowel here.)

As I think I've said before, I've noticed an apparent [ɑ] allophone of TRAP before /l/ from people with the sort of accent I call "Morningside" (i.e. a type of partially Anglicised posh Edinburgh accent). They also have it before voiceless fricatives, giving something of the impression of the trap-bath split, but based on your "Stella" recording you don't have that. (Some of them may have a genuine RP-influenced phonemic split, and also a tendency towards [æ] in TRAP words.)

Oddly, I've also noticed the back vowel before /l/ in at least one Bristolian; that's also an area where the TRAP/PALM opposition is doubtful.

Although I don't live in Morningside, I do live nearby.... and I could be described as having such an accent. After a while of living in England I did end up sometimes pronouncing BATH vowels longer – whether it's actually what you describe is doubtful. Also I don't always have [ɑ] before /l/, it's just something that tends to happen a fair bit. I think this is one of those areas where if I start looking at it too carefully I'll definitely bias the results, and probably already have.

But to lend support to your hypothesis, my kind-of-aunt (my uncle's ex-partner) was saying to me a couple of years ago that when she was growing up at a posh public school, she was ostracised for not having an English-enough accent, and the example she gave was "maths", which they would expect her to pronounce [mɑːθs] – but in actual accents with a TRAP/BATH split, this is quite definitely a TRAP word (I may not have the distinction natively, but I am a student of linguistics who has a fairly good idea of what sets things belong to in RP and a former student of maths. In England. With English people from both the north and the south but mainly the south despite the university being in the north...)

[Travis B.]

alphabet: /ˈɛlfəbɪt/ > [ˈɛɤ̯fəːbɨʔ], carefully /ˈɛlfəˌbɜt/ > [ˈɛɤ̯fəːˌbɜʔ]

[TaylorS]

factory: /ˈfɛktʃəri/ > [ˈfɛʔk̚tɕʁ̩ˤːʁˤi(ː)]
factorial: /fɛkˈtɔriəl/ > [fɛʔk̚ˈtʰɔːʁˤjɯ̞(ː)] or, carefully, [fɛʔk̚ˈtʰɔːʁˤiːɯ̞(ː)]

Do you have the trek-track merger? I have some cousins from ND who have this (/æ/ merges to /ɛ/ in all positions).

I only merge /æ/ and /ɛ/ in unstressed syllables, otherwise the former is a diphthong [ɛə]. I'm fron the Fargo area.

[TaylorS]

I've just noticed I tend to say [mɑɫɐkʌɪʔ] with ɑ – I think this must be some kind of allophonic thing I have before /l/. I remember asking how people say "alphabet" and I was the only one that said [ɑɫ]phabet rather than /æl/phabet – I think this is maybe because I don't really have a proper opposition between [æ~a~ɑ] IMD. I'm not really sure if I do this in real speech or if I'm exaggerating it here.

So yeah, let's repeat that: how do you guys pronounce
malachite and
alphabet?

(for me,
[ˈmɑɫɐkʌɪʔ]~[mɑɫəkəɪʔ] and
[ˈɑɫfəbɛʔ]~[ˈɑʊfəbɛʔ])

[ˈmɛə̯.ɫə.ˌkʌɪ̯ʔ] /ˈmæ.lə.ˌkɑɪt/
[ˈɛəɫ.fə.ˌbɛʔ] ~ [ˈɛəɫ.fə.ˌbɪʔ] /ˈæl.fə.ˌbɛt/

[Nortaneous]

I've just noticed I tend to say [mɑɫɐkʌɪʔ] with ɑ – I think this must be some kind of allophonic thing I have before /l/. I remember asking how people say "alphabet" and I was the only one that said [ɑɫ]phabet rather than /æl/phabet – I think this is maybe because I don't really have a proper opposition between [æ~a~ɑ] IMD. I'm not really sure if I do this in real speech or if I'm exaggerating it here.

So yeah, let's repeat that: how do you guys pronounce
malachite and
alphabet?

(for me,
[ˈmɑɫɐkʌɪʔ]~[mɑɫəkəɪʔ] and
[ˈɑɫfəbɛʔ]~[ˈɑʊfəbɛʔ])

/ˈmæləˌkait/ [ˈmæʌ̙̯ɫʌ̆ˌkʰʌi̯ʔ͡t̚]
/ˈælfəˌbɛt/ [ˈæʌ̙̯ɫfʋ̩ˌbɛʔ͡t̚]

[Travis B.]

factory: /ˈfɛktʃəri/ > [ˈfɛʔk̚tɕʁ̩ˤːʁˤi(ː)]
factorial: /fɛkˈtɔriəl/ > [fɛʔk̚ˈtʰɔːʁˤjɯ̞(ː)] or, carefully, [fɛʔk̚ˈtʰɔːʁˤiːɯ̞(ː)]

Do you have the trek-track merger? I have some cousins from ND who have this (/æ/ merges to /ɛ/ in all positions).

I only merge /æ/ and /ɛ/ in unstressed syllables, otherwise the former is a diphthong [ɛə]. I'm fron the Fargo area.

It is interesting that you merge them at all, and when not merged, the primary distinction is a diphthongization one, with /æ/ diphthongizing to a central POA, rather than a general POA one with /ɛ/ shifting to a central POA. In effect, while the distinction is maintained in stressed syllables, the nature of the distinction as it is maintained is essentially completely different from that back in southeastern Wisconsin (where overall POA is the primary distinction and where /ɛ/ is the one that gets centralized, and in which when /æ/ becomes a diphthong, it becomes an opening one from a notably closer POA, rather than a centralizing one from only a somewhat closer POA).