Talk:English phonology/Archive 2

Why isn't the voiceless palatal fricative (ç) included?

I don't understand why the voiceless palatal fricative (ç) is not included on the list of English sounds. It occurs in English whenever an h occurs before a u, for example, in the word "human" (the first syllable is pronounced çu). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.246.153.217 (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we should mention that somewhere but not in the table, which is a list of phonemes. Keep in mind, too, that a number of people say human like [jumən]. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I added it, along with a couple others that occurred to me while doing so. However, I'm not familiar with this article and only had a few minutes, so I won't be insulted if it's inappropriate and you revert me. kwami (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I for one do not pronounce human as either [çumən] or [jumən], but as [hjumən] (or to be ultra-narrow in transcription, [j˳jumən]), with an approximant gradually moving from voiceless to voiced but not a fricative at the beginning. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If we can't include the ç, then how can we justify including the x? I'm almost 100% sure that more English speakers use the ç than use the x, yet the x is included and the ç isn't. Just about the only people who use the x are Scottish people, whereas virtually all Americans (who number approximately 2/3 of all native English speakers) use the ç.205.246.153.217 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference is, for the people who use /x/ (which includes not only Scottish people, but also Welsh people, Irish people, and American Jews), /x/ is unambiguously a separate phoneme. [ç], on the other hand, is not a phoneme, but an allophone of /h/ before /j/. Anyway, [ç] is included now. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's saying that we can't include [ç] in the article, only that the table, which is about phonemes should only have phonemes. I wonder if the accents/varieties described as having [ç] are actually like Angr and simply have a voiceless [j]. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, I think that whatever is decided on /ç/ should also be applied to /ɾ/. I, and most Americans, I believe, say [bjuɾi] for 'beauty' and [waɾr̩] for 'water'. Speakers tend to be quite unaware of it, as it is an allophone of /t/ and /d/. I've been in Spanish classes with students that claim to be unable to produce the sound of Spanish 'r', but happily use it in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.63.100 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Stress is phonemic

I'm not disagreeing with this claim, but the examples given don't seem to prove the point. "record (vb)" /rɪ'kɔ(r)d/ and "record (noun)" /'rɛkɔ(r)d/ are distinguished by the initial vowel as well as by the stress. Are there any minimal pairs? Grover cleveland (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How about permit? /pɜ(r)ˈmɪt/ vs /ˈpɜ(r)mɪt/. Initial-stress-derived noun has more examples. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you allow phrases, there's a white house vs. the Whitehouse. Overlook, overturn, etc. are also good, if you don't mind compounds. Misprint. Reset. Transform. Monomorphemic examples are hard to come by, due to the tendency for unstressed vowels to be reduced except in compounds or phrases where analogy with the independent morpheme helps retain a full vowel. Torment isn't bad, and perfume works because a /juː/ can't reduce in English, though the /ɝ/ is arguable. I'm not coming up with a monomorphemic word with two vowels that can't reduce. Maybe there isn't a perfect example. kwami (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As for labialized /r/, which you tagged, the conditioning environment may well be wrong. Were you tagging it for that, or for the labialization itself? kwami (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate for a minute, one could argue that "permit" and "torment" are not minimal pairs because of the presence vs. absence of aspiration after the initial "p" and "t". Grover cleveland (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't notice a difference in aspiration. Even if there were, though, it would be sort of backwards to suggest that somehow English makes a distinction between unaspirated and aspirated /p/ and that an allophonic process puts stress on syllables with aspiration. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I tagged labialization of "r" simply because I hadn't heard of it before (except, of course, in the context of speakers who realize all rs as a labiodental approximant). Thanks for finding the citation. Grover cleveland (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it have to be in the onset of a stressed syllable? What about arrogant? Seems kinda labialized when I say it. We should find a source either way. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, for me that isn't the least labialized; it's like air. But you're right, we do definitely need a ref. I believe that Ladefoged mentions this in A course in phonetics, but I don't know if he covers the conditioning environment. I just checked SOWL, which I happen to have with me, but it's not there. (Not much on English is.) kwami (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't discuss it at length in A Course on Phonetics. He just says, "In many people's speech /r/ also has some degree of lip rounding. Try saying words such as 'reed' and 'heed'. Do you get some movement of the lips in the first word but not in the second? Note also whether you get anticipatory lip rounding so that the stops [t, d] are slightly rounded in words such as 'tree, dream.'" —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's just say 'in some environments', then, unless we can be sure. Or whichever wording works for you. kwami (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

For me, it isn't somewhat labialized. I have as much rounding for reed as I do for quick. But best to stick with our source. kwami (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

For me, it's definitely only somewhat labialized. I do still make a distinction between Rhonda and Rwanda. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I make a distinction between Rhonda and Rwanda but that's because I've got a whole /w/ in the latter so it's sort of like [ɻʷəwɑndə]. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone maintains a distinction between write and rite. kwami (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

According to an unsourced claim at Phonological history of English consonant clusters#Rap-wrap merger, there are dialects of Scots that maintain the distinction, but as /vr/ vs. /r/, not /wr/ vs. /r/. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Syllabic sonorants

Are there any examples of the following: /m/, /n/, /l/ and, in rhotic varieties, /r/ can be the syllable nucleus. Try as I might I can's think of any!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickterry (talk • contribs) 21:56, 2 March 2008

/n/ and /l/ can be the syllable nucleus in unstressed syllables only, as in kitten and bottle. Some would say /m/ is a syllable nucleus in words like spasm and rhythm, but I think the people who claim that are being overly influenced by the spelling; when I pronounce those words I have a definite /ə/ between the preceding consonant and the /m/ in all but the quickest speech. Also in fast speech only, I could pronounce open with a syllabic /m/. As for syllabic /r/ in rhotic dialects, the rhotacized vowels /ɝ/ and /ɚ/ (the syllable nuclei of the two syllables of merger) are sometimes transcribed as being syllabic /r/. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please type four tildes ~~~~ to sign your comments on talk pages. Thanks! —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Omitted Codas

I see the voiceless fricative-voiceless plosive combinations like sp, st, and sk, and I see the voiceless plosive-voiceless fricative combinations like ps, ts, and ks, but I don't see voiceless fricative-voiceless plosive-voiceless fricative combinations like sps, sts, and sks (as in wisps, mists and musks). An oversight? Or am I just completely off my rocker and someone declared the final s syllabic or something. Come to think of, the voiceless fricative-voiceless plosive-voiceless plosive combinations like spt and skt (as in lisped and whisked) Someone should either fix it or explain to me why I'm wrong. --99.240.139.147 (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The first part of the Coda section:

Most, and in theory all, of the following except those which end with /s/, /z/, /ʃ/, /ʒ/, /tʃ/ or /dʒ/ can be extended with /s/ or /z/ representing the morpheme -s/z-. Similarly most, and in theory all, of the following except those which end with /t/ or /d/ can be extended with /t/ or /d/ representing the morpheme -t/d-.

Apparantly this prose allows the table to be incomplete without incomplete coverage of possible coda clusters. Then again, /gs/, /fd/, /dʒt/, and /ʒt/ (to name a few) are not possible clusters in English because of constraints having to do with voicing. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Initial ʒ

Under phonotactics, where we say /ŋ/ does not occur initially, shouldn't we say something about /ʒ/ as well? It's the same kind of uncertain case as /pw/ in pueblo, and is often (maybe usually) substituted with /dʒ/. kwami (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Triphthongs

Should some mention be made of triphthongs in RP as in the words 'hour' and 'fire'? Also, how about a mention of ascending diphthongs, as the sounds /juː/ or /jɑː/ are sometimes analysed?

Also, perhaps a mention of the palatal 'n' in, say, 'onion'? Petitphoque (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Velar

Why is the velar voiced stop represented as Y? Isn't it g? --Dakrismeno (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you have the buggy font MS Reference Sans installed. See Wikipedia:International Phonetic Alphabet#Voiced velar plosive. —Angr 16:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Results of ae-tensing

I just find this part

 although the two occur largely in mutually exclusive environments

to be excessiv. It means exactly the same as "marginal contrast", only it sounds about twice as awkward. Yes, there is the possible concern that "marginal" may not be understood by the average layperson, but repeating the same in different words, without explaining that this is being done, isn't helping. --Tropylium (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be specific about where the two sounds appear. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to the article: the total number of single syllables in the English language. Japanese has 102 and Vietnamese has about 4000, in comparison. Does anyone have a source that gives the approximate number in English? Badagnani (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is the diagram of the vocal tract not wanted?

I appreciate that to begin with, the use of links was not right, but now that has been corrected I don't know why the diagram is not wanted.

Diagram of the vocal tract

It clearly shows where each consonant phoneme is produced in the English language, and, after all, this article is titled English Phonology. Is it not viable that, together with the appropriate tables, the image serves as a suitable illustration? There is a diagram of the vocal tract in the article on Phonology, so I do not see why it is not included here. --Ks 7508 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

While your effort is appreciated, it seems that a diagram of the human vocal tract already exists (see left) which has the added feature of looking more professional.

Because understanding this and other phonology pages requires a basic understanding of phonology, it's likely that readers will have either gone to phonology or somehow studied it on their own wherein they would have come across some sort of diagram of the vocal tract. Thus it isn't needed in the phonology articles.

It also doesn't seem right to simply tack on an image anywhere in an article figuring that since the image is related that it's appropriate. If there were a discussion of the vocal tract in the article I could see more justification for including it in that section. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

General American full vowels, vowel transition distinctive (left transcription)

Isn't it somewhat exaggerate to claim that be ends with a consonant? A true example of [ij] would be in French bille, and I don't think many people pronounce English be like that... --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  13:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's what the article is saying. Remember that /ij/ is a phonemic representation of English (one I'm not a big fan of), with the phonetic realization closer to [ɪi]. Also remember that [j] is not always a consonant, though I believe it is in English. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the note below does make clear that that's supposed to be just phonemic, but... I think it is confusing to represent a phoneme with something so different from their usual realization. (The pronunciation of Ye, for example, is very far from being... er... invariant under time reversal.) So I'm thinking of leaving just the table on the right... (BTW, given that the official IPA chart in the examples doesn't mark the ʊ in "phonetician" in any particular way, whereas it explicitly marks the syllable break in "react", I think one usually understands two adjacent vowels to form a diphthong, even without the "non-syllabic" diacritic on the latter vowel. So, we could get rid of those, too.) --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  23:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That you disagree with the transcription doesn't erase the fact that it is one used by enough linguists that it's notable. That is a section, after all, talking about variations in transcription. I'm not sure what you're talking about with the phonetician and react examples, but it is not normally a feature of English for "two adjacent vowels to form a diphthong." If that were true, then react would be one syllable. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, now I think you're right about keeping the table (maybe pointing out that the second transcription is more realistic). As for the latter point, that examples writes ˌfoʊnəˈtɪʃən without putting a diacritic below the ʊ, because what most people would think reading that transcription is that oʊ is a diphthong; indeed, few people would write that as oʊ̯ except in the most pedantic phonetic transcription. (And I think you misunderstood what I meant by "two adjacent vowels": I meant that words such as knife where a and ɪ form a diphthong are way more common than words such as naïve where there are two vowels divided by a syllable break.) So, if those are supposed to be phonemic transcriptions, ɪi̯ could be spelt ɪi as well, and so on. --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  09:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. You're talking about using the non-syllabic diacritic. We might ask User:Kwamikagami if the table at right was intended to be phonetic... I find it highly suspect as an example. I've never seen such a transcription scheme and I'm pretty sure he hasn't either. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 15:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you objecting to /ij/ or to [ɪi]? The former can be found in Ladefoged's A Course in Phonology, though I've misplaced my copy and don't remember who he attributed it to. [ɪi] might be more difficult to justify. AFAIK it's how you would transcribe /ij/ if you took the view that [j] is a consonant and therefore cannot be used to transcribe a diphthong. kwami (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen /ij/ and I've seen [ɪi] but I haven't seen /ɪi̯/. I think User:Army1987 objects to a phonemic representation that uses the semivowel diacritic. I do too if it's OR. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you mean /ɪi̯/ as opposed to [ɪi̯]. That isn't any different than linking an affricate with a tie bar. To be precise, /ɪi/ is a sequence of vowels, not a single phoneme, and so is factually incorrect. It might be customary to drop diacritics when they're obvious from context, but that can be confusing when introducing the material to someone for the first time. Both /ij/ and /ɪi̯/ show unequivocally that we're describing a phoneme; /ɪi/ does not. kwami (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? How comes /ij/ couldn't be taken to mean /i/ followed by /j/? --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! ! 22:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It can. /ɪi̯/ can also be taken as /ɪ/ followed by /i̯/. Both are ambiguous, but leave open at least the possibility that it's a diphthong. (Someone transcribing it /ij/ presumably believes that there is no difference.) But /ɪi/ is unambiguous: it's not a diphthong, except as a shortcut for /ɪi̯/. Two syllabic vowels do not a diphthong make. kwami (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But is it OR? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont' know. Is /eɪ̯/ OR? Or /aɪ̯/? If we remove the non-syllabic sign, we will need to explain that the result is technically incorrect because it doesn't have a non-syllabic sign. kwami (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly "technically incorrect" to transcribe diphthongs—especially in broad phonemic transcription—without a nonsyllabicity sign, especially in cases where the sequence of vowels never occurs in English as two syllables. I can't think of a single English word that contains the sequence /ɪ.i/ (unless it's part of /aɪ.i/, as in "Hawaii" and "naive", or /eɪ.i/ as in "clayey"). —Angr 07:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What about /kv/?

This onset consonant cluster should be added with the others because of definitely standard kvetch, kvell, and kvass. There's no section for plosive + fricative. 68.188.31.26 (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to the list of infrequently occurring clusters. It's definitely marginal in English. —Angr 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

/r/ or /ɹ/ ?

The article is currently a hodgepodge of /r/ and /ɹ/. We should pick one or the other. If we specify it as /ɹ/, then we're excluding those dialects which have [r]. kwami (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we should use /r/, as it's conventional to use the typographically simplest character available where no ambiguity can result. —Angr 04:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to represent English's rhotic as /r/ here (which makes sense considering the interdialectal variation), then anytime we use <ɹ> it should be in [square brackets]. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't the velarized alveolar lateral approximant in here?

The Velarized alveolar lateral approximant, represented by ɫ, should be in the phonology table. Many other wikipedia articles cite English with having this, even the Velarized alveolar lateral approximant page itself. Not only that, but on this very page it uses the "ɫ" symbol when describing words like "rebel" and "pail." If all this says this, why doesn't wikipedia have it on the table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.88.247 (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You've pointed out an error that I've just fixed. The table should only depict phonemes, not all phones. There is a note on the table that mentions that /l/ is velarized in certain contexts. Is this not enough? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

British Non-Regional Pronunciation

A new article has been started at British Non-Regional Pronunciation. That may or may not be the best way to handle what seems to be a fairly new piece of terminology. Those of you interested might like to call by there and record your thoughts. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Lure" realized as [loː] ???

There is a phenomenon in RP where some words can be realized as either (traditionally) /ʊə/ or as (more recently) /ɔː/. Thus, for example, poor can be either /pʊə/ or /pɔː/. In this article's section on "diphthongs" this appears to be covered by the example "lure" (see footnote 2 of this section).

My own native speech is pretty close to RP and I cannot imagine anyone realizing "lure" as [lɔː] or [loː]. The only realization I can conceive of is /ljʊə/. The inserted /j/ completely rules out the monophthongal pronunciation, although I suppose someone with yod-dropping in this particular word might have other possibilities. If this is true, then I must have lived outside the UK for too long :)

Now I don't have access to the source cited to support this (Roach p. 240), but I do wonder whether that source does in fact use the example "lure". Is it possible that it actually uses some other word, such as "poor" or "moor", and that this was changed to "lure" so that all the diphthong examples would begin with "l"? If someone has access to the source, could they check? Cheers, Grover cleveland (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while since I looked at Roach (2004) but I don't think there's any problem with changing the examples to pair and pure. /l/ does complicate matters. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, my concerns about "lure" would apply equally to "pure". Might I suggest "poor" as a less controversial example? Here is Wells (see especially the second sentence): "[T]here are plenty of RP speakers who pronounce some or all of poor, moor, your and sure with /ɔː/, and they are on the increase. Words in which the vowel is preceded by a consonant plus yod are relatively resistant to the shift from /ʊə/ to /ɔː/, e.g. pure, furious and cure itself..." (Wells, Accents of English 2, p. 287 Google Books link). Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Similar thing in GA. Lure and pure are never pronounced /or/, while poor almost always is, even though lure is not palatalized in GA. (Lure comes out "lurr".) kwami (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Poor is not "almost always" pore in GenAm. It sounds quite rustic in American. —Angr 11:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

All right, in Los Angeles it is /or/. But lure is not. kwami (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in unguarded speech, "poor" has been [ˈpoɹ] in most of the places I've lived in the U.S. Certainly in both Texas and Utah. In the higher registers of English, of course, spelling pronunciations take over and one hears [ˈpʊɹ]. (Taivo (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

I'd like to point out that in response to the fact that while yes, words such as "furious" and "cure", tend to be more resistant to being realized with an /o:/ sound in RP and Estuary English, they instead are accounted for by the trend in pronouncing them as /fjʊ:ɹius/ and /kjʊ:/ by an increasing number of anglophones. Mingeyqla (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. So is "cure" a homonym of "cue"/"queue" (both for me /kju:/), or are they distinguished by vowel quality? Grover cleveland (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

They are distinguished by a final [ɹ] and [ʊ] in "cure" and [u] (or a fronted diphthong variant) in American English. (Taivo (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

/kju:/ is different from /kjʊ:/ Mingeyqla (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I foresee a merger in the near future :) Grover cleveland (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

But not of the CURE vowel with the GOOSE vowel. The CURE vowel is clearly on its way out in many accents, but what it will merge with is the FORCE/NORTH vowel and (in some words, in American English) the NURSE vowel. —Angr 08:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In America, the two vowels are heading in different directions--in most dialects the "cue" vowel is stable because of the front unrounded on-glide, while the "cure" vowel is lowering. (Taivo (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC))