The CBB

elemtilas wrote: ↑05 May 2021 03:13

Waste of time, spelling reform.

In stead of tilting at windmills, we should just reform English pronunciation. That would be far easier and solve all the listed problems at once!

Yes. Now that, that is the right way. Why change the standard spelling, which everyone is using, to match a non-existent standard pronunciation people don't agree to use, when we can instead create a standard pronunciation for the existent standard spelling? Hey, it was apparently done in medieval Latin, maybe it can be done again for the new lingua franca.

Sequor wrote: ↑14 May 2021 05:18

elemtilas wrote: ↑05 May 2021 03:13

Waste of time, spelling reform.

In stead of tilting at windmills, we should just reform English pronunciation. That would be far easier and solve all the listed problems at once!

Yes. Now that, that is the right way. Why change the standard spelling, which everyone is using, to match a non-existent standard pronunciation people don't agree to use, when we can instead create a standard pronunciation for the existent standard spelling? Hey, it was apparently done in medieval Latin, maybe it can be done again for the new lingua franca.

/pronounce everything as ipa | problem solved/

For the first, Orel connects Icelandic maka, 'to smear', and indirectly (through non-verb forms) Old Norse makr, 'more unsuitable' and maki, 'match, mate' (continued in Icelandic as 'spouse'). He gives a Slavic cognate also meaning 'to smear', and a Greek cognate meaning 'to knead'.

Orel doesn't give any Norse reflexes for 'do' - nor any Gothic ones. However, there are Norse cognates for the 'deed' and 'doom' words, which ultimately come from the same root.

Sequor wrote: ↑14 May 2021 05:18

elemtilas wrote: ↑05 May 2021 03:13

Waste of time, spelling reform.

In stead of tilting at windmills, we should just reform English pronunciation. That would be far easier and solve all the listed problems at once!

Yes. Now that, that is the right way. Why change the standard spelling, which everyone is using, to match a non-existent standard pronunciation people don't agree to use, when we can instead create a standard pronunciation for the existent standard spelling? Hey, it was apparently done in medieval Latin, maybe it can be done again for the new lingua franca.

O where o where art thou, Egerie, when that we need thee!

Anyway, it's not really that difficult a transition to make: all we have to do is talk in modern words but sound like we did back in the day. (There was a really good reading I'd found years ago, but can't find it again. This one's not bad, and there are lots of examples of students giving it the old university go and doing a pretty good job of it!)

I do actually sneak some of these in. Couráge rather than kérridj kind of thing. I think more than half the battle could be won if we'd just get the vowels back in line with a more continental pronunciation. Fewer schwas, more actual vowels that are fuller and more majestic: prOHnOOnsEEAHshEEOHN

ixals wrote: ↑14 May 2021 01:08 Do North Germanic languages not have cognates of make and do? Or am I just blind?

Sorry, I meant to quote this in my reply so it wouldn't get lost. For my answer, see above...

Salmoneus wrote: ↑14 May 2021 20:35Sorry, I meant to quote this in my reply so it wouldn't get lost. For my answer, see above...

Don't worry, I already saw it without the quote. I found maki and makr as well, but I am quite surprised there is no cognate to the two verbs I talked about. They always felt very core-Germanic-vocabulary-ish to me, but thanks though!

ixals wrote: ↑15 May 2021 13:13

Salmoneus wrote: ↑14 May 2021 20:35Sorry, I meant to quote this in my reply so it wouldn't get lost. For my answer, see above...

Don't worry, I already saw it without the quote. I found maki and makr as well, but I am quite surprised there is no cognate to the two verbs I talked about. They always felt very core-Germanic-vocabulary-ish to me, but thanks though!

But he did give you Icelandic maka 'to smear' as a cognate...

FWIW, while I'm not an expert, my impression is that both verbs are also much less common in Old English than you might expect. Looking at Beowulf, there's a lot more use of "frame" and "work" instead - although of course poetry might use more ornate language than ordinary speech (translations of these words often seem to use 'perform', 'perpetrate', 'build', 'gain' and so on).

The widespread use of 'do' in English - aspectually, modally, as a dummy verb, and as a pro-verb - is much later and I think specific to English. I don't know about 'make'.

I'm looking for some information on consonant clusters in Serbo-Croatian.

jimydog000 wrote: ↑23 May 2021 21:42 I'm looking for some information on consonant clusters in Serbo-Croatian.

What kind of information?
Phonotactics? Pronunciation? Their history?

There is a sound that is pronounced like the voiced alveolar lateral approximant, but the place up is touched by the tongue's middle part instead of front part. What is this sound's name? What is it in IPA?

If by 'the tongue's middle part' you mean the top of the blade of the tongue (since in a literal sense all lateral sounds involve raising of 'the middle' of the tongue!), then you're asking about laminal vs apical.

Coronal sounds - dentals, alveolars, postalveolars - may be either 'apical' (involving the tip of the tongue), 'laminal' (involving the top of the tongue) or 'sublaminal' (involving the bottom of the tongue). In most languages, this is not a phonemic distinction, and may often vary from person to person. However, there are often tendencies within a language, and in some languages the distinction can be phonemic (lateral vs apical sibilants in Basque, and historically in Spanish). It is independent of ordinary POA distinctions (except that sublaminals, and as you go back in the mouth also sometimes apicals, are often called 'retroflexes').

[In the particular case of laterals, it may, like POA changes, be connected to the clear/dark distinction - I believe there are some people who pronounce English dark /l/ as laminal, but clear /l/ as apical]

If by the middle of the tongue, you mean the 'back' or dorsum of the tongue, you could be referring to the patal lateral that is found in Italian for example, or the velar lateral that is found in among others in some Papuan languages.

Anyone else notice that in American English /ɪ/ is often an allophone of /ə/ and syllabic consonants? I noticed a difference between the way some people and I say the word "button". For me, it comes out as /ˈbʌʔn̩/, but others seem to say /ˈbʌʔɪn/, turning that syllabic /n/ into /ɪn/. Likewise, when I say "important", it's /ɪmˈpɔɹʔn̩t/ but I hear from some others /ɪmˈpɔɹʔɪnt/. I'm not great at narrow transcription, but I notice also that for me the glottal stop occurs while my tongue is in the alveolar position (perhaps because I am using a syllabic consonant and others are using /ɪ/ and /ə/*) and sometimes when I hear a word like "button" or "important" being spoken by others, that doesn't seem to be the case (listen to the way Greg of Greg's Gadgets says "home button" at 6:22: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlF-gz1a6-0 ). That isn't how I say it. I have more of a "t" in there. An alveolarized glottal stop?

I notice this too with names beginning with "Mc". Many people say what to my ears sounds like /mɪk/, as in "MickDonalds" (even the parody name "SickDonalds" reflects that pronunciation). I seem to say /mək/ or as close to it as I can. I'm not saying I'm better, I'm just noticing /ɪ/ in places where I don't say it. Do you come across these pronunciations as well?

*Also sometimes I just can't tell the difference between syllabic /n/ and schwa followed by /n/. I seem to use syllabic /n/ in words like "important" and "button" but others use /ən/ or /ɪn/.

People often transcribe this vowel as a near close central vowel, IINM.

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote: ↑10 Jun 2021 17:54 I notice this too with names beginning with "Mc". Many people say what to my ears sounds like /mɪk/, as in "MickDonalds" (even the parody name "SickDonalds" reflects that pronunciation). I seem to say /mək/ or as close to it as I can. I'm not saying I'm better, I'm just noticing /ɪ/ in places where I don't say it. Do you come across these pronunciations as well?

People turn Mc- into "Mickey D's" instead of "Mackey D's", so clearly the /ɪ/ in Mc- is there.

Right, I guess I’m used to seeing it transcribed as schwa but in some cases it’s more like /ɨ/, which is how it’s represented in a word like “roses”. I think there’s some overlap between the two (for some, at least).

Khemehekis wrote: ↑10 Jun 2021 20:39

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote: ↑10 Jun 2021 17:54 I notice this too with names beginning with "Mc". Many people say what to my ears sounds like /mɪk/, as in "MickDonalds" (even the parody name "SickDonalds" reflects that pronunciation). I seem to say /mək/ or as close to it as I can. I'm not saying I'm better, I'm just noticing /ɪ/ in places where I don't say it. Do you come across these pronunciations as well?

People turn Mc- into "Mickey D's" instead of "Mackey D's", so clearly the /ɪ/ in Mc- is there.

In Germany people often use /mɛkəs/. Whatever that means.

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote: ↑10 Jun 2021 17:54 Anyone else notice that in American English /ɪ/ is often an allophone of /ə/ and syllabic consonants?

Yes, a great many people have noticed this. It's called "the weak vowel merger". It's also sometimes called the "Roses/Rosa's merger" or the like, after its most famous minimal pair; another clear minimal pair (that is merged in these dialects) consists of the famous 20th century names, "Lenin" vs "Lennon".

Most speakers have this merger. In many dialects, it's not universal (particularly among older speakers); however, it's only systematically resisted in England, in RP-influenced 'colonial' English dialects (Caribbean, African, Indian Englishes), and in Southern US English. Contrariwise, it's the norm in all other US dialects, in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland, and to a lesser extent Scotland.

However, there is one complication: in the US, the merger is usually in favour of /I/, but in the rest of the world it is usually in favour of /@/.

Wikipedia says that it's also increasingly common in SSBE. I'm not sure about that in my experience; for me (an SSBE speaker, albeit of a rather 'posh' or 'old-fashioned' sociolect) the distinction is very clear, and while I wouldn't be surprised by someone being confused by a minimal pair in allegro speech, I would expect them to understand the difference, and articulate which one they intended, in careful speech.

What IS definitely a thing in SSBE is the replacement of unstressed /I/ with /@/ in many morphemes and contexts. Wikipedia lists -ace, -ate, -less, -let, -ily, -ity, -ible, be-, de-, re- and e-. I mostly agree with this list, and indeed didn't remember that -less and -let were 'meant' to have /I/, although some are less clearcut than others - I think I often have /I/ in -ily and -ity, and in re- in some contexts (eg /rIspQnd/, but /r@pi:t/). Hence, although I don't merge Lennon/Lenin, I do merge edition/addition except in careful speech (and then I'd hypercorrect to /E/, not /I/). I suspect in practice I may also merge elicit/illicit, although I feel that I "shouldn't". On the other hand unstressed /I/ within the root morpheme itself is usually maintained, as it is in inflectional morphemes like -ing and -ed (so I don't merged battered/batted).

I noticed a difference between the way some people and I say the word "button". For me, it comes out as /ˈbʌʔn̩/, but others seem to say /ˈbʌʔɪn/, turning that syllabic /n/ into /ɪn/

Conceptually, it's the other way around: you eliminate the schwa because it's a schwa, whereas they don't eliminate the schwa because for them it's not a schwa. The elimination of schwa before sonorants is an ongoing 'optional' rule in English.

. Likewise, when I say "important", it's /ɪmˈpɔɹʔn̩t/ but I hear from some others /ɪmˈpɔɹʔɪnt/. I'm not great at narrow transcription, but I notice also that for me the glottal stop occurs while my tongue is in the alveolar position

There's a continuum in how people pronounce this (if they don't just have /t@n/). It can be an unreleased alveolar stop; or, it can be an unreleased glottalised alveolar stop; or it can be a glottal stop. Personally, I mostly just have an unreleased alveolar, sometimes with a bit of glottalisation.

*Also sometimes I just can't tell the difference between syllabic /n/ and schwa followed by /n/. I seem to use syllabic /n/ in words like "important" and "button" but others use /ən/ or /ɪn/.

There is no phonemic difference: /tn/ and /t@n/ are generally interchangeable (with the former more common in allegro speech, but the latter used in more 'careful' speech). The difference can be even greater for some Americans, who flap /t/ before schwa but not before a syllabic nasal, but there are no minimal pairs.

Thanks for the explanation I also notice in my own speech overlap between /ə/, /ɐ/, and /ʌ/ (in "careful" speech, a schwa at the end of the word, like say in the word arena, comes out more as /ʌ/ for me).