Nice sounding natlangs

[Thry]

candidates, what?
oh, for gayness... yeah, I don't know anyone on the gayscene around here, and I'm in a relationship [though I've been less than perfect at monogamy sadface], but sure, if dudes find me as hot as girls I shouldn't have too much trouble finding chances to.

gays are generally more direct and open than girls, so...

[Jipí]

Zeebia, the place where discussions drift away from their origins... oh, wait.

Rather: where discussions inevitably drift towards non-normative sexuality and how special a snowflake you are in connection to it.

[Torco]

Zeebia, the place where discussions drift away from their origins... oh, wait.

Rather: where discussions inevitably drift towards non-normative sexuality and how special a snowflake you are in connection to it.

non normative sexuality, pronunciation of english words, the emotional angst of some kid never learning anything...

[Bob Johnson]

Zeebia, the place where discussions drift away from their origins... oh, wait.

Rather: where discussions inevitably drift towards non-normative sexuality and how special a snowflake you are in connection to it.

Lots of threads start on the beautiful and unique snowflake topic though.

[Ulan]

Ignoring some derailment ....
+:
Turkic languages *swoon*
Slavic languages (Serbian and such is meh, but I find Russian, Polish, and Bulgarian to be pretty sweet)
Danish

-:
Somali
Italian (or Iberian Spanish could replace this, it is a close call)
Greek

Though those negative languages are closer to 'bittersweet', it was hard for me to think of any language that actually seems ugly

[Thry]

God that's weird xD
más raro que un perro verde

[langover94]

Like:
Portuguese (I like some nasal vowels)
Turkish (Yay for vowel harmony)
Afrikaans (It just sounds really cool)

Dislike:
Mandarin Chinese (The tones just sound ugly to me)
French (The overwhelming use of nasals just makes it sound terrible)
Polish (szczchjaoeijslav)

[Atom]

I like French sung, but not spoken. I also have a terrible fondness for Russian and Yiddish, but in both cases I don't think they sound good, but endearing.

[Travis B.]

said the briton ? o_ó

Well yes. Having [ə] for everything and maybe occasionally [i] is way easier (hence less annoying) than pronouncing everything as long and whiny as Americans.

Actually I find it easier to converge towards a GenAm accent than to a British one, as a German speaker.

Because whenever you try to speak British you overenunciate everything and then get laughed at, while in American overenunciating is normal?

Sorry buuut American > British English.

Nope, only for singing. Singing sounds bad in British accents.

Well that is probably because many of us at least actually have proper unreduced monophthongs or at most only weak diphthongs for most things (aside for /aɪ̯ aʊ̯ ɔɪ̯/ and sometimes /æ/), rather than seemingly having only diphthongs and schwas for everything.

Seriously, English English sounds like all diphthong and schwa all the time. (Well, okay, you do have a few monophthongs where historically /r/ was present.) Hell, /iː uː/ somehow manage to be diphthongs for you guys...

[Torco]

I like French sung, but not spoken. I also have a terrible fondness for Russian and Yiddish, but in both cases I don't think they sound good, but endearing.

likely the palatals, that's what's so characteristically endearing bout russian.

[Torco]

Seriously, English English sounds like all diphthong and schwa all the time. (Well, okay, you do have a few monophthongs where historically /r/ was present.) Hell, /iː uː/ somehow manage to be diphthongs for you guys...

to me all english sounds like dipthongs and @; in american english, most dipthongs and @ are also rhotic, and aspiration is weirder, consos are laxer, but that's it.

[Travis B.]

It probably depends on the variety of NAE one is speaking of. For instance, I am used to only having diphthongs for /aɪ̯ aʊ̯ ɔɪ̯/ (even though the first two sometimes manage to be monophthongs and normally they have quite open offglides), sometimes stressed /æ/, sometimes final or pre-hiatus /oʊ̯/, and /uː/ after a coronal or palatal and not before another coronal or palatal. I am also used to there being two different "schwas", /ə/ and unstressed /ɪ/, which do contrast.

General American is not a whole lot different except that both /eɪ̯/ and /oʊ̯/ are (generally but not necessarily weak) diphthongs in all environments, /aɪ̯ aʊ̯/ are always diphthongs and have closer offglides, /æ/ is only a diphthong before /n/, /uː/ may behave differently, and the distribution of /ə/ and unstressed /ɪ/ differs. In general, though, it is more diphthongy than the English I am used to from back home. But this is just the GA I am personally familiar with, which likely has substratum influence from dialects not too different from my own.

Still, the standards by which an NAE-speaker like myself are to call something a monophthong likely differ from those by which a Spanish-speaker would, so we are likely to perceive our own speech as being more monophthongy than they would. (But by our own perceptions, English English often in turn sounds diphthongy, with things like having [ɪj ʊw] for /iː uː/ compared to what we perceive as or [i ʉ].)

[finlay]

I think american english has quite diphthongy sounds, particularly those two. Mind you, I come from an almost aggressively monophthongal linguistic background; I now (ie compared to my childhood) often have diphthongs for the more obvious ones like /e/ and /o/ but I usually have a short monophthong for /i/ and /u/.

[Torco]

Still, the standards by which an NAE-speaker like myself are to call something a monophthong likely differ from those by which a Spanish-speaker would, so we are likely to perceive our own speech as being more monophthongy than they would. (But by our own perceptions, English English often in turn sounds diphthongy, with things like having [ɪj ʊw] for /iː uː/ compared to what we perceive as or [i ʉ].)

I do declare, my friend, that english has only one monopthong: @. all the rest are dipthongs by my standards, which I think to be correct in this particular case. what an english speaker might percieve to be a pure vowel most often than not isn't. Using the vowel system of spanish, which is the most common one in world langs, is a better idea for measuring what quality change is monopthongy that the 23 vowel system [20? I think it varies by dialect] of a language that's phonologically funkier than Xhosa.

I think, as a consequence, most english speakers will feel other dialects are more dipthongy than their own, just like I and every other spanisher tends to feel that other dialects of spanish are more melodic and 'sung', so to speak, than their own, even tho they're all melodic.

[Ser]

Not sure if you're joking but... [ɪ ʊ ə ɛ ɔ æ ɑ]. I'd say there's seven?

[Torco]

/ɪ ʊ ə ɛ ɔ æ ɑ/, perhaps, and that's if you don't analyze english dipthongs as their own phonemes, which I'd be tempted to do.

[Travis B.]

Of those, /æ/ is somewhat liable to turn into a diphthong in much of NAE, and in some dialects is very liable to be a diphthong. GA does tend to have [eə̯] before /n/, while Inland North dialects can have that or even [iə̯] or the like for it everywhere or at least when stressed. My own dialect often has a weaker diphthong [eɛ̯] for it when stressed (for a while I picked up my ex's [iɛ̯]), even though that is not consistent and most of the time it is just the monophthong [ɛ].

However, /ɪ ʊ ə ɛ ɒ ɑː ɔː/ tend to be monophthongs in at least most of English as I know it, even though /ʊ/ in at least my own dialect breaks into [ʉ̞̯ʊ] when preceded by a coronal or palatal and not followed by one (paralleling /uː/ in the same environment).

[finlay]

/ɪ ʊ ə ɛ ɔ æ ɑ/, perhaps, and that's if you don't analyze english dipthongs as their own phonemes, which I'd be tempted to do.

eh? well, for one, you can't analyse english diphthongs as sequences of monophthongs, because the phonology doesn't work that way.

plus, most accents of english use two distinct unstressed vowels ɪ and ə, which are never diphthongs.

also it really depends on whose english you're talking about. my /i u/ are very much not diphthongs. scottish accents tend to have three diphthongs (/aɪ, aʊ, ɔɪ/) and 10 or so monophthongs. (/i u ɪ e o ɛ ɔ a ʌ ə/) my accent is kinda mixed though, so i sometimes have more diphthongs.

[Ser]

/ɪ ʊ ə ɛ ɔ æ ɑ/, perhaps, and that's if you don't analyze english dipthongs as their own phonemes, which I'd be tempted to do.

But I'm not doing that, I'm just saying these are generally monophthongs (though I hadn't considered what Travis says about /æ/).

eh? well, for one, you can't analyse english diphthongs as sequences of monophthongs, because the phonology doesn't work that way.

Hmmm... Nonetheless, we could analyze them as sequences of a monophthong and an off-glide. Sounds entertaining at least.

General American /ɪi, ʉu, eɪ, oʊ, ɔɪ, aɪ, aʊ/ > /ɪj, ʊw, ɛj, ɔw, ɔj, æj, æw/.

[Nortaneous]

Not sure if you're joking but... [ɪ ʊ ə ɛ ɔ æ ɑ]. I'd say there's seven?

/ɪ ɔ æ/ get diphthongized in some dialects (to [iə̯ uə̯ eə̯] or so), although I'm not sure if there's any that hit all three.

[Travis B.]

I think american english has quite diphthongy sounds, particularly those two. Mind you, I come from an almost aggressively monophthongal linguistic background; I now (ie compared to my childhood) often have diphthongs for the more obvious ones like /e/ and /o/ but I usually have a short monophthong for /i/ and /u/.

It probably depends a lot on even the particular sort of NAE one is speaking of. For instance, I am used to /oʊ̯/ generally being [o]* (or something a tad more open), and, when it is not, only being [oʊ̯], but the /oʊ̯/ I hear from other Americans elsewhere (like here in Maryland) can reach even [ɐʉ̯]. Similarly, people from other parts of the US can easily have something like [ɛɪ̯] for /eɪ̯/, while I am used to [e]* (or something a tad more open) and, when it is not, only being [eɪ̯].

* In my own speech, though, I have noticed that both of these can inconsistently be very weak falling opening diphthongs when these are long, even though they are pure monophthongs when they are short; they also vary in their exact quality between when they are long and short, being closer when short and more open when long.

For some reason I have not really noticed much in the way of diphthongs for /iː uː/ in NAE except for breaking of the latter preceded by a coronal or palatal and not also followed by one, even though I am aware it does definitely happen in Southern dialects. However, I may have not been paying as much attention to it from other Americans (whereas I hear it immediately in English English), and it could be present in other NAE dialects other than just Southern ones but at a lower level than in English English, such that I overlook it.

[Torco]

General American /ɪi, ʉu, eɪ, oʊ, ɔɪ, aɪ, aʊ/ > /ɪj, ʊw, ɛj, ɔw, ɔj, æj, æw

right on!
*plays air guitar*

[Travis B.]

Silly kids. Such an analysis implies* that diphthongs are inherently longer than monophthongs (or at least short ones), when in fact in dialects that have lost historical phonemic vowel length and acquired pure allophonic vowel length (e.g. most NAE dialects), diphthongs acquire length in just the same way as monophthongs, and thus there are no inherent length differences between the two.

* You could say that it does not, but that requires introducing a rule that glides take up no length and merely modify the vowels they are adjacent to. This has the problem, though, in that there are glides that do take up length, i.e. those that are traditionally analyzed as semivowels.

[Torco]

Silly kids. Such an analysis implies that diphthongs are inherently longer than monophthongs (or at least short ones)

?
no it doesn't, does it ?

[Travis B.]

Silly kids. Such an analysis implies that diphthongs are inherently longer than monophthongs (or at least short ones)

?
no it doesn't, does it ?

* You could say that it does not, but that requires introducing a rule that glides take up no length and merely modify the vowels they are adjacent to. This has the problem, though, in that there are glides that do take up length, i.e. those that are traditionally analyzed as semivowels.