Hot answers tagged

11

In English, the only real difference between these two is that [ʌ] occurs in stressed syllables, and [ə] occurs in unstressed syllables. There is a slight acoustic difference between the two ([ʌ] is supposed to be a tiny bit lower and possibly backer than [ə]), but it is so slight that it is virtually indistinguishable. Also note that many full vowels ...


10

For RP, doesn't khan, con, corn work? If you allow widely-known foreign foods, how about pawed, pod, pad, where pad is as in pad thai (and that one even works for rhotic accents).


7

Phonemically, the consonant cluster at the start of queen is usually analysed as two successive phonemes, a stop and a glide (or semivowel), so as /kw/ not as the labialized /kʷ/. Phonetically it may in fact be [kʰʷ]in some speakers, but this is not a phonemic distinction, only an allophone. That means the phonemes of queen are /kwin/. Compare twin ...


5

A phoneme is the smallest sound component of speech. A syllable will often consist of more than one phoneme. Speech synthesis software operates by playing a sequence of phonemes to produce intelligible sounds. Allophones are phonemes with differing sounds. For example, the B in trouble and bitter are considered to be allophones as they both consist of ...


4

The two l s in little are allophones - they're two different sounds representing the same phoneme (basic sound)/grapheme (symbol representing a sound). Native speakers don't normally think about those two l s as making a different sound. In Japanese, はげ can be pronounced haɣe instead of hage, so this is an example of g and ɣ being allophon In some ...


4

Do these work? Sawed, sod and Sade. (Sade being the last name of Marquis de Sade.) Bought, bot and Baht. (Baht being the currency of Thailand.)


4

Wikipedia calls this a speech error or slip of the tongue (noted in the comments). A speech error, commonly referred to as a slip of the tongue1 (Latin: lapsus linguae, or occasionally self-demonstratingly, lipsus languae), is a deviation (conscious or unconscious) from the apparently intended form of an utterance.


4

The happy vowel, as it is known,/i/, is not a feature of all Englishes. In Australian English, for example, this vowel is subject to lengthening in open syllables. In British English, the happy vowel may be realised with the quality of either /i:/ or /ɪ/, and variation between speakers can be observed. However, younger speakers in more recent years are ...


4

I'm betting you can find this in a Scottish or Irish English accent. I'm no expert, but I would suggest looking at cat/caught/cot as a possible triple of those vowels. You'd have to find one that escaped the caught/cot merger, and that has a rather back variant of the BATH vowel. To wit: cat /kɑt/ caught /kɒt/ cot /kɔt/ In addition, most ...


4

There's no single word for it. It’s the diphthong /ɔɪ/, a glide which ‘begins between back half-open and open positions, moves upwards and forwards towards [ɪ]; lips open rounded changing to neutral’ (‘Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language’).


4

I think the text you saw referenced was probably Comma Gets a Cure. This text has words from all of John Wells's lexical sets, which were designed to encompass variation between standard British "Received Pronunciation" and standard "General American," two of the most well-known dialects of English. Wells's lexical sets don't include the fern/fir/fur ...


3

There is a contrast (in most non-rhotic varieties of English) between words like "ferry" /feri/ and "fairy" /feəri/. How should we analyse them if /eə/ = /er/? As /feri/ and /ferri/? That doesn't seem right to most people. Perhaps you could use syllabification (/fe.ri/ vs. /fer.i/), but people don't really agree about how to syllabify words like "ferry." ...


3

I have found the following triple, which however is only valid for non rhotic accents : bard /bɑːd/ bod /bɒd/ baud /bɔːd/


2

æ The near-open front unrounded vowel, or near-low front unrounded vowel, is a type of vowel sound, used in some spoken languages. The symbol in the International Phonetic Alphabet that represents this sound is ⟨æ⟩, a lowercase ae ligature. Both the symbol and the sound are commonly referred to as “ash”. ɑ The open back unrounded vowel, or low back ...


2

If you look at the various spellings for each given phoneme listed in Wikipedia’s section on “Sound to Spelling Correspondences” in their article on English Orthography, this may help. I’ve looked at both your PDF sources: the Wikipedia section is better than either of those. Your task is harder than you may realize.


2

Judging by the range of alternative spellings for digne, and the pronunciations of the same word in Icelandic and old Danish, I'd say it was pronounced with a soft 'g', with a sound as the 'y' in "yoke". deeyne Using the same deduction, I'd agree with your suggested pronunciation of na: nay


2

I believe I’ve just discovered something that sheds light on this mystery. Peter Shore kindly pointed out this vowel chart, in which figure the following two charts (amongst others). First, the American one: And now the British one: This probably explains why it’s so hard for me to find a minimal triple, since General American has only two vowels ...


2

Traditional RP has 12 monophthongs: six short vowels—kit, put, dress, strut, trap, lot— five long vowels—fleece, goose, nurse, thought, start and the schwa—banana. According to this blog post, Modern RP has up to three more monophthongs—square, near, cure. These are essentially long versions of the short vowels dress, kit, ...


2

Right, This happens to be a very interesting question, unfortunately I think I can only help in part, but we'll see! You're right, there is a historic reason for the differing orthography; if we look at the etymologies of the words, we find two very different historical roots. We will start (for no specific reason) with fur, whence inflected to form furry. ...


2

I think the source of your confusion is that different people use different sets of symbols to represent the same pronunciations in English. Phonemic notation for English is fairly standardized, but it isn't absolutely uniform: for example, another area of variance is the notation of syllabic resonants (do we write the last syllables of button chasm bottle ...


1

In most American dialects, /ɪər/, /eər/, /ʊər/ are allophones of /ɪr/, /er/, /ʊr/. Some speakers say /nɪər/ (near), but /nɪrər/ (nearer) and /mɪrər/ (mirror). So if you speak one of these dialects (or are learning English from somebody who does), this distinction may be confusing. Dictionaries make these distinctions because they exist for many speakers. ...


1

In my opinion, and I think also in the opinion of many other American linguists, there is no stressed sound [ə] in standard American English. This sound occurs only as a result of the phonological process of vowel reduction in certain unstressed syllables: non-high lax unstressed vowels become schwa. There is no phoneme schwa in English, so the notation ...


1

In the pronunciation /bəˈkəz/, neither of the syllables is truly stressed. There are several function words in English which have weak forms and strong forms, depending on whether the word is stressed in the sentence. For example, the words but, just, could, should are pronounced with /ʌ/, /ʊ/ when they are stressed, and /ə/ when they are unstressed, which ...


1

There are many ways to answer this question, depending on the kind of error in speech. Your example is only one kind. I would say this is a "slip of the tongue." This subject comes up most often when addressing what politicians say in a speech or answers to questions from constituents. Typically, a politician will say they "misspoke" or made a "gaffe." ...


1

I think the problem is to do with the accents represented in the audio source. The vowel in appetite might be better represented as /a/ rather than /ӕ/. This is the value of the TRAP vowel in many younger RP speakers. The person who says Mark sounds as if she is a Northern English speaker. Northern English speakers often lack the back /ɑ/ vowel, and they ...


1

I don't think one can attempt to answer the question as is. By definition, if you merge, in production two sounds in your own dialect with respect to another (or rather rewrite one sound to an existing one), then two words that started in the standard dialect as different but are pronounced the same in the dialect are by definition indistinguishable ...


1

I did some investigation and I have determined that the dictionary entries returned by the Google define: operator are from the New Oxford American Dictionary, including the pronunciation symbols. The OxfordDictionaries.com site has a complete key to these pronunciations. To determine this, I started the Wikipedia article that compares many of these ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible