User:Erutuon/English

I have an 11-vowel system in most cases, but a 6-vowel system before /r/. This smaller system can be analyzed as the basic five vowels /i e a o u/ plus /ə/, although the vowel qualities vary from the cardinal system.

Lexical sets

Here I'm trying to create a phonemic analysis of my form of English. It hopefully gives a better picture of the vowel space than the Wikipedia diaphonemic system. Some vowels, like /e o/, are often diphthongized, but it might not be necessary to transcribe that. I've gotten rid of the symbols /ɪ ʊ ʌ/ because they were created to describe an archaic form of Received Pronunciation, and aren't accurate or useful anymore.

FLEECE /ˈflis/ FACE /ˈfes/ DRESS /ˈdɹɛs/ TRAP /ˈtɹæp/

KIT /ˈkət/ FOOT /ˈfɵt/ STRUT /ˈstɹɐt/

GOOSE /ˈɡus/ GOAT /ˈgot/ FATHER, LOT, THOUGHT /ˈfɑðəɹ ˈlɑt ˈθɑt/

Vowels before r:

NEAR /ˈniɹ/ SQUARE /ˈskweɹ/

NURSE /ˈnəɹs/ or /ˈnɹs/ START /ˈstɐɹt/

POOR /ˈpuɹ/ NORTH /ˈnorθ/ FAR /ˈfɑɹ/

The North Wind	and the Sun	were disputing	which was the stronger,	when a traveler	came along	wrapped in a warm cloak.
/ðə noɹθ ˈwənd	ən(d) ðə ˈsɐn	wɹ dəsˈpjuɾəŋ	ˌwətʃ wəz ðə ˈstɹɑŋɡɹ	wɛn ə ˈtɹævlɹ	kem əˈlɑŋ	ræpt ən ə ˌwɐɹm ˈklok/

Details

I have no consistent cot–caught distinction. My face and goat vowels are frequently monophthongal, and face is closer than goat: [fes gɔt]. /ai au ar/ are raised to [ɐi ɐu ɐ˞] in certain environments.

The vowel of kit is mid-centralized. I think it has merged with schwa in most cases, so that kit is phonemically /ˈkət/, with the same vowel as the first syllable of about /əˈbaut/. However, there's a distinction between pill and pull, which makes this analysis problematic before /l/.

The front low vowel is diphthongized before /ɡ ŋ/, so sang and tag are [ˈsæiŋ ˈtæiɡ] or [ˈsɛiŋ tɛiɡ]. This probably indicates that /ɡ ŋ/ are fronted to post-palatal [ɡ̟ŋ̟], perhaps after front vowels. There's no diphthongization in bog [ˈbɑɡ].

I think I have a phonemic contrast between /ɑi/ and /ɐi/: alive /əlɑiv/, knives /nɐivz/.

Vowels Front Central Back Close i Near-close, close-mid e(ɪ) ɵ̜ ʊ̟ Mid ə ɔ(ʊ) Open-mid, near-open ɛ ɐ Open æ ɑ

Vowels before /r/ Front Central Back Close, near-close iɹ̠     ʊɹ̠ Mid e̞ɹ̠ ɚ ɔɹ̠ Open-mid, near-open äɹ̠~ɐ˞ Open

Diphthongs

• my
• how
• boy

Vowels before /r/:

• beer, mirror: [iɹ̠]
• fair, square, ferry, marry: [eɹ̠]
• car, unstressed our (open), cart (near-open): [äɹ̠ ɐɹ̠]
• more: [ɔɹ̠]
• poor: [ʊ̟ɹ̠]

Usually disyllabic:

• liar,* fire*: [äi.ɚ ɐi.ɚ]
• hour,* stressed our*: [äu.ɚ]

Vowels before /l/:

• pill: [e̞̠ɫ]
• pull: [pəɫ~pɫ̩]

Usually disyllabic:

• pool*: [u.əɫ]
• pile*: [äi.əɫ]
• Powell*: [äu.əɫ]

Raising

• car, cart
• high, height; liar, fire
• bow and bower, bout

Comments

Peter238, you might find this interesting. — Eru·tuon 23:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. If I may suggest changes to the transcription, You can transcribe [e̞̠] and [ɛ̞̠] as [e̽] and [ɛ̞̈] (or [æ̠], if you want). They're probably easier to display in unsophisticated browsers. I remember how even Firefox and Opera struggled to display more than one diacritic underneath IPA symbols (and under [y], well... nothing was visible.) Also, does the higher [e̞̠] represent how you pronounce /ɪ/? That looks so Inland Northern American/Scottish :P — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 23:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Peter238: Fascinating; I've never used the x-diacritic before. It would certainly work for the mid vowel; for [ɛ̞̠], not so much, since this vowel is lowered, not raised. I suppose [æ̈] might be admissible, though the vowel is, I think, a little higher than the "standard" value for [æ].

Actually, it's the opposite way around. When I gave up my biases based on the traditional diaphonemic symbols, I realized that my supposed /ɪ/ vowel is actually lower than my /eɪ/, which I find astonishing. Below I have listed my front vowels by height, from close to open.

• beet, bate, bit, bet, bat

[pit pet pe̽t pæ̈t pa̝t]

If I created a new phonemic transcription system, there are two possibilities:

• beet, bate, bit, bet, bat

/bit bɪt bet bɛt bat/ (system 1)

/bit bet bɛt bæt bat/ (system 2)

Thus, the relative heights of /ɪ/ and /eɪ/ are curiously rearranged. So what do you think? Does this look like Northern Cities, or something else? — Eru·tuon 00:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The mid-centralization diacritic is unambiguous in the sense that it always indicates a diagonal movement towards the mid central position. The centralization diacritic may be used either for perpendicular movement towards the central equivalent of the vowel on which you place this diacritic or, (though probably not in official IPA) to indicate the diagonal movement described above. The latter way is how e.g. Collins & Mees (2003) use the centralization diacritic. That is why I'm not a fan of it, but I'm not a fan of ambiguities in general.

(OT, but feels relevant): There's also another issue with diacritics, namely using them to indicate not realizations differing from the official values of the symbols, but differing from the values of the symbols in a specific language. An example of that is Hans Basbøll, who in his The Phonology of Danish uses [a̞] to indicate a rather uncommon realization which is lower than the usual Danish [a]. In official IPA, these would be [a] and [æ], respectively. The combination [a̞] makes no sense in the official IPA, as the cardinal [a] is by default the lowest possible front unrounded vowel.

If what you transcribe [æ̈] is a vowel that is raised and retracted from the default position of [æ] (near-open fully front), then it is unambiguously written [æ̽], [æ̝̈], or [ɛ̞̈] (or in other ways, but these are the ones that are most easily displayed in most browsers.) From these, [æ̽] is the simplest symbol, and therefore (IMO) the best one.

What I meant is that [e̽] is one of the most audible parts of the heavier variants of NCVS and many Scottish accents. AFAICS, the first one looks Scottish, the second one somewhat like broader variants of California English. All in all, for the phonemic transcription I'd just choose the simplest symbols I could, or even use the symbols traditionally used to transcribe GA. Privately, in phonemic transcription (which I rarely do), I tend to use the traditional set of symbols for RP for all accents. Otherwise there's just too much to remember. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 01:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Peter238: Oh, quite right. [æ̽] is the substitute for [ɛ̞̈]. I was getting confused. And just so it's clear, my phonetic transcription is based on the official values, not the values in a particular language.

I was confused whether you were talking about with regard to [e̽]. Looking at Scottish English and California English, I see what you mean. /ɪ/ is pronounced [e̽]. Inland Northern American English doesn't seem to show a heavier version of the NCVS. It's funny, but I've never learned to hear this particular shift, so Scottish i sounds normal to me.

I was trying to create a separate transcription system, because using the traditional symbols obscures the vowel changes. I'm curious how my phonological system has changed, what modifications of the vowel space it can be analyzed as having ?— similar to the way that RP /ɑː ɒ ɔː/ have shifted or are shifting to [ɑː ɔ oː] to make vowel qualities be more evenly distributed. Using new symbols makes the phonetic or phonological changes more clear. And it provides a way to compare English with other languages, if other languages have more phonetically accurate symbols. — Eru·tuon 02:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Yeah, I noticed that. I just mentioned Basbøll's transcription of Danish [a], because it felt relevant.

I meant that the phonemic transcription proposed by you look like Scottish English and broad California English, respectively. But indeed, /ɪ/ that is noticeably lower than usual is common in both of these. If you want to hear [e̽] in Scottish accent, listen to Andy Gray. His /ɪ/ seems to fluctuate between [ɪ] and [e̽].

You're probably right about updating the phonemic transcription system. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds pretty odd in the video. I wonder if my lowering of /ɪ/ is somehow different from his. I uploaded a recording here. Perhaps you can tell me if there's a difference, or what it is. Perhaps my /eɪ/ is higher than his, and hence my /ɪ/ is higher as well. But my auditory judgment is pretty bad. — Eru·tuon 18:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The difference seems to be in height. Your /ɪ/ sounds higher than Gray's. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Tharthan, you might be interested in seeing this description of my dialect, and how it, like yours but in other ways, is different from GA. — Eru·tuon 19:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I've been on (and unfortunately will continue to be on) an (unannounced) WikiBreak as of late. I will put up a notice on my userpage and talkpage for this. I'm just very busy at the moment. My sincere apologies.

I did, however, notice that your /ɪ/ was a bit different that what I am used to hearing for /ɪ/. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tharthan: I didn't notice your user page message till now. I wish you the best for the threat to your life, whatever it may be, and hope to see you back here again.

I realized my pin spin bin nip nib recording would be affected by my idiosyncratic pronunciation, and perhaps I will re-record and try to use a more standard pronunciation. — Eru·tuon 21:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Erutuon. I have been struggling with this for over a year now (it may be two years at this point, I can't remember anymore), and posted a message about it when it started getting worse. When things get particularly problematic, I am afraid that I will be unable to contribute here, on Wiktionary, and Commons. I hope I eventually recover, but until then my presence is by no means guaranteed unfortunately.

I will still check in here and there, however, but I will not be here as often by any means. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)