Moderator:JackFrost
Rom wrote:I just noticed that I pronounce "cult" and "difficult" with different vowels, and vanilla differently then some people.
Kirk wrote:Rom wrote:I just noticed that I pronounce "cult" and "difficult" with different vowels, and vanilla differently then some people.
Interestingly, you also have the same vowel in "golf" and "cult," whereas I have two different ones there. We both have /ɛ/ for "milk" but I have /ɪ/ for "vanilla" and we both have /ɪ/ for "silk." I added in some more words with similar environments and also some words without [ɫ] to see how my default vowels are in such positions without the influence of [ɫ]. Pre-[ɫ] vowel phenomena can be really interesting across dialects.
secretGeek on CodingHorror wrote:Type inference is not a gateway drug to more dynamically typed languages.
Rather "var" is a gateway drug toward "real" type inferencing, of which var is but a tiny cigarette to the greater crack mountain!
Travis B. wrote:I myself have for these words:
hull : [hʌːɫ]
hole : [hoːɫ]
hut : [hʌʔ]
hope : [hop]
multi : [ˈmɔɫtaɪ]
mutt : [mʌʔ]
golf : [gɔɫf]
gulf : [gɔɫf]
guff : [gʌf]
cult : [kʰʌɫʔ]
colt : [kʰoɫʔ]
coat : [kʰo̜t]
difficult : [ˈdɪfɪkɫ̩ʔ]
insult : [ˈɪ̃nsɔɫʔ]
silk : [sɪɫk]
milk : [mɪɫk]
ilk : [ɪɫk]
elk : [ɛɫk]
vanilla : [vɨ̃ˈnɪːɫə]
pillow : [ˈpʰɪːɫo]
million [ˈmɪːɫjɪ̃ːn]Kirk wrote:Rom wrote:I just noticed that I pronounce "cult" and "difficult" with different vowels, and vanilla differently then some people.
Interestingly, you also have the same vowel in "golf" and "cult," whereas I have two different ones there. We both have /ɛ/ for "milk" but I have /ɪ/ for "vanilla" and we both have /ɪ/ for "silk." I added in some more words with similar environments and also some words without [ɫ] to see how my default vowels are in such positions without the influence of [ɫ]. Pre-[ɫ] vowel phenomena can be really interesting across dialects.
In my dialect, I seem to have rounding of what would have been [ʌ], but it is to [ɔ] rather than [o] (possibly thanks to being NCVS rather than CVS), and it seems to occur in different places from where it occurs in your dialect. I myself cannot seem to get a consistent rule from my examples above, but it does seem to be less frequent or regular in my speech than in yours. On another note, I have /ɪ/ for both milk and vanilla. Note, though, that [mɛɫk] is also current for milk in this area, which both my mom and my girlfriend use for such.
Kirk wrote:Yes, your data are certaintly interesting. As you said, I can't find rules that work as consistently as they do for my speech. I was somewhat surprised you pronounce "golf/gulf" the same. You don't do the same for "doll/dull" right? Or do you?
secretGeek on CodingHorror wrote:Type inference is not a gateway drug to more dynamically typed languages.
Rather "var" is a gateway drug toward "real" type inferencing, of which var is but a tiny cigarette to the greater crack mountain!
Travis B. wrote:Kirk wrote:Yes, your data are certaintly interesting. As you said, I can't find rules that work as consistently as they do for my speech. I was somewhat surprised you pronounce "golf/gulf" the same. You don't do the same for "doll/dull" right? Or do you?
I myself pronounce doll as [dɔːɫ] and dull as [dʌːɫ]. The main thing here is that the change of historical [ʌ] to [ɔ] can only occur if there is another consonant (and I would suspect an obstruent at that) after /ɫ/, but even that is not consistent, as shown by my aforementioned examples. One note though is that there is consistently [ɔɫ] for what was most likely historically [ɑɫ] in my dialect. Furthermore, there is an interesting alternation for what was most likely historically [ɒɫ] where such has been shifted in a syllable structure-dependent fashion to either [ɔɫ] or [ɑɫ] depending on whether such is split by a syllable boundary, which has been morphologically frozen in different related wordforms based on the same root, such as doll and dolly, which for me is [ˈdɑːɫi].
Bugi wrote:Good. You can make it a sticky too...
Kirk wrote:Travis B. wrote:Kirk wrote:Yes, your data are certaintly interesting. As you said, I can't find rules that work as consistently as they do for my speech. I was somewhat surprised you pronounce "golf/gulf" the same. You don't do the same for "doll/dull" right? Or do you?
I myself pronounce doll as [dɔːɫ] and dull as [dʌːɫ]. The main thing here is that the change of historical [ʌ] to [ɔ] can only occur if there is another consonant (and I would suspect an obstruent at that) after /ɫ/, but even that is not consistent, as shown by my aforementioned examples. One note though is that there is consistently [ɔɫ] for what was most likely historically [ɑɫ] in my dialect. Furthermore, there is an interesting alternation for what was most likely historically [ɒɫ] where such has been shifted in a syllable structure-dependent fashion to either [ɔɫ] or [ɑɫ] depending on whether such is split by a syllable boundary, which has been morphologically frozen in different related wordforms based on the same root, such as doll and dolly, which for me is [ˈdɑːɫi].
Yeah, I remember talking with you about that phenomenon in your dialect before. Really interesting.
secretGeek on CodingHorror wrote:Type inference is not a gateway drug to more dynamically typed languages.
Rather "var" is a gateway drug toward "real" type inferencing, of which var is but a tiny cigarette to the greater crack mountain!
-Pablo- wrote:One more question.
How do you pronounce the TM "Nike".
Here in Argentina we all say it somethink like "naik" (don't wanna use IPA ), but I've been told that in English speaking countries they say "niki".
-Pablo- wrote:One more question.
How do you pronounce the TM "Nike".
Here in Argentina we all say it somethink like "naik" (don't wanna use IPA ), but I've been told that in English speaking countries they say "niki".
secretGeek on CodingHorror wrote:Type inference is not a gateway drug to more dynamically typed languages.
Rather "var" is a gateway drug toward "real" type inferencing, of which var is but a tiny cigarette to the greater crack mountain!
Travis B. wrote:-Pablo- wrote:Here in Argentina we all say it somethink like "naik" (don't wanna use IPA ), but I've been told that in English speaking countries they say "niki".
I myself pronounce "Nike" as [ˈnəɪki], which might be somewhat like what you mean by "niki".
-Pablo- wrote:One more question.
How do you pronounce the TM "Nike".
Here in Argentina we all say it somethink like "naik" (don't wanna use IPA ), but I've been told that in English speaking countries they say "niki".
Kirk wrote:Does anyone else here have the pronunciation [θeŋ] for "thing?" I usually do (tho it's interchangeable with [θiŋ] for me) and it seems relatively common here. Since I have front-vowel raising before monomorphemic /ŋ/, historical /θɪŋ/ is my [θiŋ] and I presume my [θeŋ] is rooted in historical /θæŋ/ (as historical /hæŋ/ is my [heŋ]), which is found in some American dialects of English.
What's interesting is that in related forms "something" and "nothing" I only have [-iŋ], never *[-eŋ]. This would also seem to give evidence to the analysis of my [θeŋ] as rooted in a separate lexical item from historical /θɪŋ/, as /ɪŋ/>/eŋ/ does not occur elsewhere in my dialect.
secretGeek on CodingHorror wrote:Type inference is not a gateway drug to more dynamically typed languages.
Rather "var" is a gateway drug toward "real" type inferencing, of which var is but a tiny cigarette to the greater crack mountain!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests