Words you love because of their sounds

[CrazyEttin]

English: Colloquial
Finnish: Suo

[Rui]

Another English one:

streptococcus, and usually any other disease ending with -coccus

[Travis B.]

British English (my variety of) has
squirrel [ˈskwɪɹl̩]
rural [ɹʊːɹl̩]
plural [plʊːɹl̩]
all of which are perhaps less striking than some of the American versions.

For some reason, I have wished that the "let's reduce the quality of all short vowels before /r/" had not caught on in the way it did. In your typical southern English English varieties it is bad enough - and then your typical North American English varieties had to finish off many of the survivors that are present therein...

[Travis B.]

[ˈɰˤʁ̩ˤːʁˤɯ̞(ː)]

Holy fuck Mekoshan here I come

Yes, rural is probably the most horrible word that is not some long tongue-twister in my dialect of English.

(It is horrible in any variety of North American English, mind you, but this just takes it to another level.)

(And yes, what you refer to therein is inspired by things like these in actual real-life English dialects in the Upper Midwest today.)

[Whimemsz]

Yes. I'm a native English speaker and I have trouble pronouncing it in normal-speed speech. And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that!

[stranger]

Tickertape

[Travis B.]

Words like "squirrel" are why I analyze (at least my dialect of) English as having a vowel /ɚ/ instead of a sequence /ər/. I can't think of any words that have /Vrl#/ for any V other than, in the conventional analysis, /ə/, besides the name Carl, which commonly (hell, more often than not) gets pronounced as two syllables -- i.e. /kʰarəl/.

I have no problem with analyzing the other syllabic liquids as /əl/ sequences, though; as far as I know, that doesn't complicate the phonotactics, and they only appear in unstressed syllables anyway. (Except arguably syllabic /l/, sometimes/in some dialects, but that's from /ʊl/.)

Can you have a bare syllabic /r/ (i.e. /ɚ/) or /l/ before another vowel, without an intervening non-syllabic /r/ or /l/, or not?

This question, that my dialect cannot have a syllabic before a vowel, was one of the things that really decided that at least my dialect really indeed has /ər/ and /əl/ (or /ʊl/) underlyingly, and that analyzing things this way was not mere analysis without basis in fact.

Yet I have seen other people on here in discussions like these report that they indeed do have syllabics directly followed by vowels in realization, something that does more support having syllabic phonemes /r̩/ and even /l̩/, particularly when combined with what you speak of above.

I would say what you speak of is definitely something that should be taken into account in analyses here, but is not necessarily a deciding fact. While it by itself is something that does potentially favor there existing a phoneme /r̩/, there are things do tip things the other way that likely apply.

[Travis B.]

Hey wait a minute!

/ɑ(ː)rl/ finally or followed by a consonant most definitely is a valid sequence in North American English (and I presume other rhotic English varieties) unless it has been completely merged with /ɑ(ː)rəl/ in a given variety, and Carl is not merely a strange, borrowed special case.

Take, for instance, I can recall I at least have:

Charles: /ˈtʃarlz/ > [ˈtʃʰɑːʁˤɰs]
Charleston: /ˈtʃarlstɪn/ > [ˈtʃʰɑʁˤɰstɨ̃(ː)n]~[ˈtʃʰɑʁˤɰstn̩(ː)]
snarl: /ˈsnarl/ > [ˈsnɑ(ː)ʁˤɰ]
gnarl: /ˈnarl/ > [ˈnɑ(ː)ʁˤɰ]
harlequin: /ˈharlkwɪn/ > [ˈhɑʁˤɰkwɨ̃(ː)n]~[ˈhɑʁˤɰkwn̩(ː)]
Marlboro(ugh): /ˈmarlˌboro/ > [ˈmɑːʁˤɰˌb̥ɔːʁo(ː)]

(This is by no means an exhaustive list for myself, but I only wanted to include forms clearly at least ~150 years old, and wanted to exclude personal and company names.)

Now, where the hell did this idea come from exactly?

[finlay]

I tend to have some degree of syllable breaking in virtually all of them. [tʃɑɹəɫz] etc. (of course that's a very loose transcription, esp. compared to yours) It's not as "obvious" as it is in some other words, to be fair.

But I pronounce harlequin as /harləkwɪn/, which I'm not sure is correct*, and I tend to pronounce Marlborough with a non-rhotic accent (ie [mɑːɫbəɹɐ] or [mɑːwbəɹʷɐ] for an example of a vocalised version) because I find it to be a bit of a tongue twister with a rhotic accent, and i end up saying things like [mɑɹəɫbəɫɐ] (ie mixing up L and R for some reason). Of course, at this point it may also be worth pointing out that my pronounciation of the -borough/brough/brugh/burgh/boro suffix is [bərɐ] or [bərə] or [bʌrə] or [bʌrʌ] or [bərʌ] or [brɐ] or [brʌ] or [brə] (OK I really don't know what it is and it's not particularly consistent, but that's not the point. Anyway, the unstressed final vowel is some kind of central and/or open vowel, and the unstressed penultimate vowel is usually either schwa or elided altogether), as opposed to the american pronunciation /boro/ (ie they're systemically different, or whatever the correct term was). I cry a little bit inside when I hear Americans pronouncing Edinburgh as /ɛdɪnboro/.

*edit: wiktionary agrees with me on this one!

[Rui]

Charles: /ˈtʃarlz/ > [ˈtʃʰɑːʁˤɰs]
Charleston: /ˈtʃarlstɪn/ > [ˈtʃʰɑʁˤɰstɨ̃(ː)n]~[ˈtʃʰɑʁˤɰstn̩(ː)]
snarl: /ˈsnarl/ > [ˈsnɑ(ː)ʁˤɰ]
gnarl: /ˈnarl/ > [ˈnɑ(ː)ʁˤɰ]
harlequin: /ˈharlkwɪn/ > [ˈhɑʁˤɰkwɨ̃(ː)n]~[ˈhɑʁˤɰkwn̩(ː)]
Marlboro(ugh): /ˈmarlˌboro/ > [ˈmɑːʁˤɰˌb̥ɔːʁo(ː)]

Huh, for the first 4, I have similar pronunciations (as similar as they can get, anyway, replacing your dialect-specific phones (ʁˤ and ɰ) with more standard ones...also, I have [z] in Charles, I don't know if that was just a typo or if you actually have [s]...I guess you do, since you indicated /z/...

But my last two are different...I definitely have 3 syllables for harlequin (isn't the <e> pronounced? I always thought it was, broadly, [hɑɹɫəkwɪn]). And I oddly pronounce Marlboro without the r, so [mɑːɫbəɹoʊ], even though my dialect is, in fact, rhotic.

*edit* now that I'm repeating it over in my head, I can't tell anymore if I have 1 syllable for Charles, snarl, and gnarl, or if I have a syllabic l...

[Whimemsz]

Americans pronounce "-borough"/etc. as /boro/? I guess I haven't noticed that...I certainly don't--I generally have something like /bro/~/bəro/~/br.ro/. For "Marlborough" I have something like [mɑɹb^ɚɹɘʊ] or [mɑɫb^ɚɹɘʊ]

[finlay]

Travis does apparently. The point is I have an unstressed commA vowel as the final one whereas you have a GOAT vowel. For the one before that I'm not really surprised that the two of you after me are also saying you have a schwa.

[Bob Johnson]

Can you have a bare syllabic /r/ (i.e. /ɚ/) or /l/ before another vowel

Hmm.. Edinburgh: [ɛ.dn.bɻ.ə]

The <eagle>/<seagull> contrast (they don't rhyme) makes me think I have a contrast /l̩/~/əl/ but I'm not sure about the big picture.

[Rui]

The <eagle>/<seagull> contrast (they don't rhyme) makes me think I have a contrast /l̩/~/əl/ but I'm not sure about the big picture.

Are you sure that's not just a stress thing? <eagle> is stressed-unstressed, <seagull> is stressed-secondary stress (bisyllabic root vs. compound word). In fast speech, I tend to merge them, but in careful(er) speech, they are also distinct, but the <gull> is definitely more stressed than the <gle>, but not as much as <sea>/<ea>

[Travis B.]

I tend to have some degree of syllable breaking in virtually all of them. [tʃɑɹəɫz] etc. (of course that's a very loose transcription, esp. compared to yours) It's not as "obvious" as it is in some other words, to be fair.

My dialect phonotactically seems to have a strong restriction on breaking syllables into multiple syllables in such cases, in that essentially creating a new syllable requires creating a new nucleus that must receive length (and hence adding an epenthetic schwa someplace may very well require actually making that schwa long), and may require assigning length to the preceding length (which will necessarily be long, even if it would have been short before). Whenever it does simplify clusters it is almost invariably through assimilation, elision, consonant epenthesis, in some cases metathesis, and the like; vowel epenthesis practically never happens. (When syllables are split it almost is due to a part of a diphthong being promoted to being a nucleus of its own.)

Hence Carl /ˈkarl/ > [ˈkʰɑ(ː)ʁˤɰ] cannot simply be split to become (*/ˈkarəl/ > *[ˈkʰɑːʁˤɯ̞(ː)]). Rather, Carl always remains clearly shorter than, say, coral /ˈkorəl/ > [ˈkʰɔːʁˤɯ̞(ː)].

But I pronounce harlequin as /harləkwɪn/, which I'm not sure is correct*,

Actually, apparently, that sort of pronunciation is the "correct" one, even though I am used to the disyllabic version myself.

and I tend to pronounce Marlborough with a non-rhotic accent (ie [mɑːɫbəɹɐ] or [mɑːwbəɹʷɐ] for an example of a vocalised version) because I find it to be a bit of a tongue twister with a rhotic accent, and i end up saying things like [mɑɹəɫbəɫɐ] (ie mixing up L and R for some reason). Of course, at this point it may also be worth pointing out that my pronounciation of the -borough/brough/brugh/burgh/boro suffix is [bərɐ] or [bərə] or [bʌrə] or [bʌrʌ] or [bərʌ] or [brɐ] or [brʌ] or [brə] (OK I really don't know what it is and it's not particularly consistent, but that's not the point. Anyway, the unstressed final vowel is some kind of central and/or open vowel, and the unstressed penultimate vowel is usually either schwa or elided altogether), as opposed to the american pronunciation /boro/ (ie they're systemically different, or whatever the correct term was). I cry a little bit inside when I hear Americans pronouncing Edinburgh as /ɛdɪnboro/.

*edit: wiktionary agrees with me on this one!

Where did you find these Americans saying /ɛdɪnboro/? Heh. The usual American mangling I am familiar with is Edinburg /ˈɛdɪnˌbərɡ/, my /ˈɜdɪnˌbərɡ/ > [ˈɜːɾɨ̃ːnˌb̥ʁ̩ˤːɡ̊]~[ˈɜːdn̩ːˌb̥ʁ̩ˤːɡ̊]~[ˈɜ̃̂ːɨ̯̃nˌb̥ʁ̩ˤːɡ̊]~[ˈɜ̂ːnːˌb̥ʁ̩ˤːɡ̊].

[Travis B.]

The <eagle>/<seagull> contrast (they don't rhyme) makes me think I have a contrast /l̩/~/əl/ but I'm not sure about the big picture.

Are you sure that's not just a stress thing? <eagle> is stressed-unstressed, <seagull> is stressed-secondary stress (bisyllabic root vs. compound word). In fast speech, I tend to merge them, but in careful(er) speech, they are also distinct, but the <gull> is definitely more stressed than the <gle>, but not as much as <sea>/<ea>

Yes. Even in NAE varieties with the typical merger of the historical /ʌ/ and /ə/, the merged phoneme, typically called /ə/, behaves differently in stressed syllables before /l/ than it does in unstressed syllables, such that it is pronounced like the historical /ʌl/ without syllabification.

Rather, syllabic /l/ in stressed syllables results from /ʊl/, and this syllabification behaves differently than one might expect in some varieties, in that the rounding of the /ʊ/ may be preserved as part of the realized syllabic /l/.

[finlay]

Where did you find these Americans saying /ɛdɪnboro/?

Once they're actually here they tend to cotton on that pronouncing it -burg is wrong and they will be mercilessly mocked and/or told off for it, but pronouncing it -boro is usually just dismissed as an American accent. Most people probably don't realise.

[Travis B.]

Where did you find these Americans saying /ɛdɪnboro/?

Once they're actually here they tend to cotton on that pronouncing it -burg is wrong and they will be mercilessly mocked and/or told off for it, but pronouncing it -boro is usually just dismissed as an American accent. Most people probably don't realise.

I personally am well aware that the proper ending for Edinburgh is -/brə/, but I still pronounce it the way do simply because that is what the name of the city is in my dialect. If I were to start calling Edinburgh with -/brə/ it would be as if I were to start calling Paris /paˈri/...

This is also considering that -burg -/bərɡ/ is a very commonplace placename suffix in my dialect, while -boro -/boro/ is only associated with a brand of cigarettes (with there being a vague idea that it might be used in some other parts of the US), and -borough -/boro/ is simply known to be used somewhere in the British Isles (and mentally brings up the historical figure of the Duke of Marlborough more than anything)... and as for -burgh -/brə/, that is only known to be "the correct pronunciation of -burgh in Edinburgh"...

(Can we say substratum influence here?)

[Bob Johnson]

Are you sure that's not just a stress thing? <eagle> is stressed-unstressed, <seagull> is stressed-secondary stress (bisyllabic root vs. compound word). In fast speech

I'm not sure at all, but phonemic secondary stress makes me do weird faces. Also it's not sentence stress or rushed speech.

I don't disagree with what Travis said about it but have no other comment there.

[finlay]

Where did you find these Americans saying /ɛdɪnboro/?

Once they're actually here they tend to cotton on that pronouncing it -burg is wrong and they will be mercilessly mocked and/or told off for it, but pronouncing it -boro is usually just dismissed as an American accent. Most people probably don't realise.

I personally am well aware that the proper ending for Edinburgh is -/brə/, but I still pronounce it the way do simply because that is what the name of the city is in my dialect.

Except that that's what the name of the city is not!

I've also heard it from a few French speakers who had American-influenced accents, FWIW.

[Davoush]

'Rural' in scouse isn't too bad I think... [ɾɔ:ɾəl]. And it's not a velarised /l/.

[Travis B.]

'Rural' in scouse isn't too bad I think... [ɾɔ:ɾəl]. And it's not a velarised /l/.

That is much better, yes.

... even though cannot help but think of my dawdle /ˈdɒdəl/ > [ˈd̥ɒːɾɯ̞(ː)] when I try to pronounce it out to myself.

[Travis B.]

Where did you find these Americans saying /ɛdɪnboro/?

Once they're actually here they tend to cotton on that pronouncing it -burg is wrong and they will be mercilessly mocked and/or told off for it, but pronouncing it -boro is usually just dismissed as an American accent. Most people probably don't realise.

I personally am well aware that the proper ending for Edinburgh is -/brə/, but I still pronounce it the way do simply because that is what the name of the city is in my dialect.

Except that that's what the name of the city is not!

In Scottish and English English, you mean.

[finlay]

Where did you find these Americans saying /ɛdɪnboro/?

Once they're actually here they tend to cotton on that pronouncing it -burg is wrong and they will be mercilessly mocked and/or told off for it, but pronouncing it -boro is usually just dismissed as an American accent. Most people probably don't realise.

I personally am well aware that the proper ending for Edinburgh is -/brə/, but I still pronounce it the way do simply because that is what the name of the city is in my dialect.

Except that that's what the name of the city is not!

In Scottish and English English, you mean.

No, it's not the name of the city, in any English. You're pronouncing it wrong. You are allowed to continue to pronounce it that way, of course (there's no way i can stop you), as long as you know that it is the wrong way to pronounce it. That's the end of it.

I'm serious.


(as for 'rural', i think i already mentioned somewhere that i pronounce it [ɻʉːɻəɫ]. Not reducing as many vowels before R is fun.)

[Whimemsz]

Finlay, use the "Paris = /pa'ri/" example: you're a tourist in France and you speak some French but with a very heavy American English accent. Saying /ɛdɪnbərg/ is like asking someone for directions to ['pʰeɪɹɪs] instead of [pʰə'ɹij].