lɑːs naɪt aɪ pleɪd maɪ mələʊdiən ət ə seʃn̩ ɪn ə pʌb ɒn wɪmbl̩dən kɒmən, nɒt veri fɑː frəm weər aɪ lɪv. ðiːz seʃn̩z ə held wʌns ə mʌnθ ən ɔːɡənaɪzd baɪ ə ləʊkl̩ mɒrɪs saɪd. dʒʌst ʌndə twenti piːpl̩ tɜːnd ʌp fə ðə seʃn̩. ðeɪ ɪŋkluːdɪd θriː ʌðə mələʊdiən pleɪəz. ɪts ɔːlwɪz ɪntrəstɪŋ tə kəmpeə nəʊts. bifɔː wi stɑːtɪd, wʌn əv ðəm kaɪndli əlaʊd mi tə traɪ aʊt hɪz ɪnstrəmənt (mʌtʃ mɔːr ɪkspensɪv ðəm maɪn).
evriwʌn wəz siːtɪd əraʊnd teɪbl̩z ɪn ə smɔːl rʊm ɪn ðə pʌb (ðə snʌɡ). wʌns ðə seʃn̩ prɒpə wəz ʌndə weɪ, ðə fɔːmən (tʃeəmən) kɔːld ɒn iːtʃ pɑːtɪsɪpənt ɪn tɜːn tə liːd ə tjuːn ɔːr ə sɒŋ. ðə prəʊɡræm wəz ə mɪkstʃər əv ɪnstrəmentl̩ stʌf (fɪdl̩z, kɒnsətiːnə, maʊθ ɔːɡən, mələʊdiənz) ənd ʌnəkʌmpənid sɪŋɪŋ. tuː ruːlz əplaɪd, əz ɪz juːʒuəl ɪn pʌb seʃn̩z — nəʊ æmplɪfɪkeɪʃn̩ ən nəʊ pleɪɪŋ ɔː sɪŋɪŋ frəm ə rɪtn̩ skɔː.
ðə sɪŋəz sæŋ veəriəs fəʊk sɒŋz ən fəʊk-staɪl sɒŋz. wiː ɪnstrəmentl̩ɪss pleɪd ɪŋɡlɪʃ (ənd ʌðə) dɑːns tjuːnz. ðiːz ə tɪpɪkli θɜːti tuː bɑː riːlz, dʒɪɡz, hɔːnpaɪps ɔː wɔːltsɪz, wɪð ðə strʌktʃər AABB. ðə kənvenʃn̩ ɪz ðət ju pleɪ iːtʃ tjuːn θriː taɪmz θruː, ɡɪvɪŋ ʌðə pleɪəz taɪm tə pɪk ʌp ðə melədi ən dʒɔɪn ɪn ɪf ðeɪ kæn.
maɪ əʊn fɜːs kɒntrɪbjuːʃn̩ wəz ə raʊdi riːl kɔːld tʃaɪniːz breɪkdaʊn (Chinese Breakdown), wɪtʃ tə maɪ səpraɪz ði ʌðə pleɪəz dɪdn̩t nəʊ — ɪt wəz wʌn əv ðə steɪpl̩z əv ðə bænd aɪ juːs tə pleɪ ɪn fɔːti jɪəz əɡəʊ — fɒləʊb baɪ ðə krʊkɪd stəʊvpaɪp (Crooked Stovepipe). leɪtə, wem maɪ tɜːn keɪm raʊnd əɡen, aɪ pleɪd dʒesiz hɔːnpaɪp (Jessie’s Hornpipe), seɡweɪɪŋ ɪntə səʊldʒəz dʒɔɪ (Soldier’s Joy), wɪtʃ evriwʌn nəʊz.
Posts
θænks for ðə post! ɒi ɛm stʌdiːng lɪŋgwɪstiks ɪn joɹk ðɪs jiɹ. ɹidiŋ θru ðɪs wʌz gʊd pɹæktɪs, æn ɪt sɑundɪd laik ə ɹɒlɪkiŋ gʊd taɪm.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you could comment on a few choices in your transcription:
ReplyDelete* 'followed by' (last paragraph) shows assimilation of the final [d], which is transcribed as [b]; but there is no such assimilation of the [d] in 'allowed me' (para 3). Is this random, or is there a rule involved? Maybe because the second syllable of 'allowed' is stressed while that of 'followed' is not?
* no deletion is shown for the final [d] in 'around tables' (para 4). Do you think deletion of this [d] is possible or usual?
* why is there a [d] at the end of 'with' in 'with the structure' (para 5)? Is this your normal pronunciation?
* is the double /ll/ in 'wholly' (para 1) deliberate?
David:
ReplyDelete1. yes, random or stylistically driven ("optional", "variable").
2. yes, though I suppose there might be pressure here from the need to distinguish from "a round table(s)".
3. was an error, corrected even before I read your note.
4. yes.
I wonder if you could elaborate on the double /ll/ in 'wholly'? I presume 'wholly' and 'holy' are distinct? (This is confirmed in LPD.) Are there any other words like that with a contrast between a single and double consonant in the middle? My guess is that it occurs in 'wholly' because of the potential contrast between a clear and dark /l/. Is that right? So, if you were using phonetic transcription rather than phonemic, would you show it as a single dark /l/? And do you think everyone distinguishes 'wholly' from 'holy'? I'm not sure that I do.
ReplyDeleteThere is plenty of variability in wholly. Several adverbs from adjective stems in /-l/ tend to keep double l, including dully and futilely, though of course we have just one l in fully, simply, gently. Other examples? Try guyless ('I need a man!') vs. guileless.
ReplyDeleteðɪs saʊnz laɪk ə vɛrɪ naɪs i:vnɪŋ. wɛn aɪ gʊ tə fɔʊk gɪgz, aɪm nɒ:məlɪ jʊŋɡə ðən ɛvrɪwʊn ɛls.
ReplyDeleteaɪ ɪnɨʃəlɪ rɛd [ɪnstrəmentl̩ɪss] as (instrumentless) bʊ? nju: ða? ju wə ple:ɪn sɔˑ aɪ ri:əlaɪsd ða? ju mɛnt (instrumentalists)
Back into prose:
In London English, does the word "folk" take the [ɒʊ] variant of GOAT? In parts of the north where GOAT gets diphthongised before /l/, "folk" is subject to this change even though the [l] has long since been lost. This is why the word is sometimes spelt "fowk" in eye-dialect.
Ed: no, for me folk rhymes with joke.
ReplyDeleteDavid: there's solely, too, with double ll.
Surprisingly both Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate® Dictionary and Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary give two pronunciations for fully: one with simple and another one with geminate l.
ReplyDeleteMy hypothesis, then, is that a single versus double consonant in the middle of a word only affects /l/. Is that right? For example, we don't seem to differentiate single and double /t/, so 'city' (single 't' in the spelling), 'ditty' (double 'tt', single morpheme), and 'gritty' (double 'tt', two morphemes) are exact rhymes. Is that correct? Is it possible to have a minimal pair of the 'holy'/'wholly' type that does not involve an /l/?
ReplyDeleteDavid - compare bookcase and book-ace, also unknown versus un-own (if the latter existed!)
ReplyDeletemaɪ rɪspɒns wəz mɔ: tə ðə sʌbstn̩s ðən tə ðə trænskrɪptʃn̩. wɛn aɪ wəz jʌŋ aɪ spɛnt mɛnij i:vnɪŋz ɪn sɛʃn̩z laɪk ðɪs, ənd i:vn̩ mɔ:r ɪn foʊk klʌb sɛʃn̩z — əz wɛl əz taɪm spɛnt præktsɪsɪŋ ənd pəfɔ:mɪŋ mɒrɪs dɑ:nsɪŋ.
ReplyDeleteaɪv bɪn θɪŋkɪn əbaʊt sʌtʃ pəfɔ:mn̩sɪz bikɒz aɪm kʌrn̩tli ri:dɪŋ ðij ɪmædʒɪnd vɪlɪdʒ baɪ dʒɔ:dʒi:nə bɔɪz (Georgina Boyes). pɑ:t — aɪ səspɛkt ðə kɔr — əv hɜ: θi:sɪs ɪz ðət ðə pəfɔ:mn̩sɪz ət jɔ: sɛʃn̩z ænd ðə dɪspleɪz əv ðə mɒrɪs saɪd (ænd, əv kɔ:s, ðə foʊk klʌbz aɪ ju:stʊ frɪkwɛnt) ɑ:r ɪgza:mpl̩z əv ə kʌltjʊrəl invɛntʃn̩ kɔ:ld ðə foʊk rɪvaɪvəl.
foʊk mju:zɪk, foʊk da:ns, foʊk sɒŋ, foʊk kʌstm̩ wər a:tɪfækts ðət ə kəlɛktʃn̩ əv naɪnti:nθ sɛntjʊri skɒləz sɔ:r əz ɪmpɔ:tn̩t kɔntra:sts tʊ pɒpjʊlə kʌltʃə — ɪn ðə sɛns əv kʌltʃə ðət wəz ɪndʒɔɪd baɪ ðə pi:pəl. ðə pi:pəl hæd əpɔ:liŋ teɪst bət ə smɔ:l pa:t əv ðɛə rɛpətwa: kənsɪstɪd əv ðə gʊd stʌf ðə ðə skɔləz laɪkd. ðə bæd stʌf bɪlɒŋgd tə pi:pəl əv ði eɪdʒ — ðə gʊd stʌf bɪlɒŋd tə ðə foʊk əv ðe pɑ:st.
sɪns ðə foʊk wɜ:nt əraʊnd tə meɪnteɪn ðə kɒntɪnju:ɪti əv pəfɔ:mn̩s, sɛsɪl ʃa:p (Cecil Sharp) ənd ʌðəz meɪd ɪt ðɛə mɪʃn̩ tə rɪpleɪs ðə foʊk. ðə foʊk rɪvaɪvəl wəz ə mæs mu:vmn̩t dɪvoʊtɪd tə pjurɪfaɪjɪŋ pɒpjʊlə teɪst. ðɪs mɪʃn̩ meɪ əv bi:n əbændn̩d baɪ ʌs ðɛə səksɛsəz, bət wi hæv ɪnhɛrɪtɪd ðɛə kɒsɛpt ənd ðɛə dɛfɪnɪʃn̩ əv foʊk kʌltʃə — ənd əbʌv ɔ:l ðɛə dʒʌdʒmn̩t əz tʊ wɒt ɪz nɒt foʊk.
(oʊ keɪ, aɪrɪʃ sɛʃn̩z meɪ ɪskeɪp ðə teɪnt əv rɪvaɪvəlɪzm̩)
Thank you for the good excercise. IPA & finesses of pronunciation are always welcomed by a lifelong learner of English as a foreign language. It's never too late to learn new words, too: "seɡweɪɪŋ" puzzled me at first. I wondered whether the Segway PT (which I have heard of) has become such an everyday vehicle that the word itself is used to describe something that happens in music. – But, alas, it was just my bad command of the language.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's segueing ('moving smoothly from one song, idea, activity, condition etc to another' - LDOCE).
ReplyDeleteWow. Good practice for me, thanks!
ReplyDeleteContrast ən ɔːɡənaɪzd and ənd ʌnəkʌmpənid. Any principle involved here, or just random variation?
ReplyDeleteɔːlwɪz strikes me as a very old-fashioned pronunciation. Given the mental image conjured up by that feature of your speech, I found myself surprised by pɑːtɪsɪpənt - I would have expected pətɪsɪpənt.
Ad David Crosby
ReplyDeletesome scholars sɔ:r əz (something or other)
I have a question, please. Some English people have often warned me against saying 'sore as' for 'saw as' or 'the idea riz' for 'the idea is' or 'dror it' for 'draw it' --- claiming the the pronunciation was vulgar. What the truth of the matter, in your opinion?
Also: your 'pi:pəl' amazes me, I thought it was pi:pl, with a syllabic 'l'. Or pi:pw, with a non-syllabic 'w' (Estuary English?). Do you actually say 'pi:pəl'?
Re segweying or how d'you call it: I personally perceive it as a... let us politely say ...not extremely comfortable means of transportation. Also, the person atop of this vehicle looks sort of too exposed, unless (s)he is very beautiful, which most of us aren't. In Poland they have been around for some time, like 10 years or so, but few people have so far fallen in love with segweys.I have not and most likely shall not, no matter how they spell and transcribe it phonetically.
Wojciech
ReplyDeleteThe phenomenon is known as 'intrusive R'. Way back in the nineteenth century there were people who deprecated the feature — without realising that they sometimes exhibited it themselves. I'm personally very happy to acknowledge that I'm an R-intruder. I wouldn't teach it as 'correct' — but neither would I ever censure as 'incorrect.
Forty years ago, my wife — a native Russian speaker who had been in English speaking environments for less than a year — asked a friend and colleague who had recently been a Lecturer in Linguistics at Reading for a vɒdkə-r-ən tɒniɪk (vodka and tonic). He asked her to repeat the request (to check whether she was consistent) then complimented her on acquiring an authentic pronunciation feature despite what she'd been taught. We weren't in England at the time (actually in Egypt) but I don't think that was relevant.
Yes, there are still people who poke fun at intrusive R with references to Laura Norda (law and order). But I suspect many of them say drɔ:rɪŋ for drawing.
Wojciech
ReplyDeleteI composed my posting in Microsoft Word, where it was easy to format the ə for my transcription of people as little and superscript — the choice John makes in his LPD. I know I could have done the same in the comment box, but it would have involved finding an elusive special symbol.
Let me try ...
pi:pᵊl.
Better?
Steve - Contrast ən ɔːɡənaɪzd and ənd ʌnəkʌmpənid. Any principle involved here, or just random variation?
ReplyDeleteFor me, ə and ʌ are clearly distinct. The weak form of the indefinite article has the first, the prefix un- the second. See my blog entries for 13 July 2010 and 21 Sep 2009.
pub [pʌb] sounds like a Dublin accent.
ReplyDelete@John Wells: I don't think the indefinite article enters into it. I think the transcriptions I quoted represent 'and organized' and 'and unaccompanied' respectively, so I was querying different treatments of 'and' when followed by a vowel.
ReplyDelete@Steve:
ReplyDeleteɔːlwɪz strikes me as a very old-fashioned pronunciation
What would you expect instead?
@Wojciech: I'm amazed by your "pi:pw, with a non-syllabic 'w'": people is always two syllables, so this would have to be syllabic 'w', surely? Being a bit estuarial myself, I would be inclined to suggest piːpɔː where ɔː represents the more closed version of that sound (as in 'all', not 'oar').
ReplyDelete@vp: ɔːlweɪz, possibly ɔːlwəz.
ReplyDeleteSteve
ReplyDeleteI see a difference. If John had silently dictated to his inner ear a mixture of instrumental music and unaccompanied singing, the conjoined structure would have been salient and John might well have uttered a silent ən ʌnəkʌmpənid sɪŋɪŋ. But he postponed that resolution by inserting the exemplary list fiddles, concertina, mouth organ, melodeons — after which he silently made more of the and.
It all depends on the purpose of a 'transcription' where there are no pre-exiting audible sounds to base it on. I didn't read it as a text such as one might compose for teaching purposes, but as John's impression — and a very expert impression indeed — of what he would sound like if he was audible.
Ad David Crosby
ReplyDeleteYes, thank you, this puts me at ease... Personally, I prefer this linking-r pronounciation, but various English persons for ages went on disadvising me against it with the explanation that it was 'vulgar'. Well, think with the learne`d and speak with the vulgar, as the saying goes. I don't know if this displeases you much, but I like this linking-r partly because it reminds me of the French liaison: bonn zidee', e'ta zuni... Well, this association can't possible flatter an Englishman...
Ad Steve,
yes, of course syllabic 'w', yet a 'w', not an 'oo', this must have confused me. I don't know how a 'w' can be syllabic and yet consonantal, or semi-(but only semi-)vocalic at the same time, obviously it can... . But maybe you're right and there is simply an 'o' there, not a 'w'.
In Cracow (Poland) there once was, maybe still is, a tradition (going back to a teacher?) of dropping the -le after a labial altogether, so people cultivating it would say 'peep', 'simp', coup' or such ... They were all like from the '40-ies. Strange, but I have run across such malpractice several times... Those persons did not realise they were mispronouncing those English words.
Wojciech
ReplyDeleteit reminds me of the French liaison: bonn zidee', e'ta zuni...
The difference is that those French phrases have orthographic S.
People who criticise my sɔ:r ə pɪktʃə (saw a picture) might well use the sound corresponding to letter-R in the comparable liaison sɔ:r əbʌv (soar above).
Ad David Crosby
ReplyDeleteYes, I am aware of that. The analogy between French and English is again that the sounds -z and -r once were actually sounded not just before a vowel but always. The disanalogy again is that while in English (you say) it's OK to say 'I saw-r-an eagle soaring above', the French grammarians _unisono_ condemn, and have always condemned, such 'unhistorical' liasons as e. g. 'ils ont neuf z-enfants' (they have nine kids) or 'parle moi z'en' (tell me about it). And in general, the rules for the French liaison are terribly complex and a true class-shibboleth, and other dreadful things.
One Lowell (a poet) once wrote:
If you take a sword and draw it
And go stick your fellow through
Guvment ain't to answer for it
God will send the bill to you.
But here again I am in doubt, this Lowell (XIX c.) was from Connecticut, New England; they tend(ed) to be r-less, nonrhotic there, and also, they say, some r-less Southerners in the US (why then not a few New-Englanders?) do not do r-linking at all, so for them 'for it' is 'faw it', no r, still less an r in 'draw it'.
wi dɪdn̩? gɛr əz mɛnɪ pɔ:sts ɪn aɪ pi: e: ðɪs taɪm. a laɪ? tə si: haʊ ɛvrɪwʊn spi:ks. ɪ?s ɪntrɛstɪɳ ðə? de:vɪd haz [a:] ra:ðə ðən [ɑ:] ɪn sʊm wɜ:dz.
ReplyDeleteEd
ReplyDeleteɪ?s ɪntrɛstɪɳ ðə? de:vɪd haz [a:] ra:ðə ðən [ɑ:] ɪn sʊm wɜ:dz.
That tells you more about my transcription ability than my pronunciation.
Ad Ed
ReplyDeleteAre your from Northern England?
@ Wojciech: jɛs, aɪm frɒm jɒ:kʃə. haʊ də ju se: (Wojciech)?
ReplyDelete@ David Crosbi: aɪ tu: mɛk ɛrəz ɪn transkrɪpʃn̩. aɪ rɔ:t [ɳ] wɛn aɪ mɛnt [ŋ]. nɔubɒdɪz pɜ:fɛkt!
@David Deterding fɔ mi: (ˈsʌθən ˈɪŋglɪʃ) ðɛ:z ə ˈmɪnɪməl ˈtʃɹɪpəl: "HOLY" ˈho:li (ɔ: ˈhouli ɪf sɛd̚ mɔ: kɛ:fəli); "WHOLLY" ˈhɒuli; "HOLLY" ˈhɒli wɪð θɹi: ˈdɪfɹənt̚ væulz. ðʌs "WHOLLY" ɪz laik̚ "GOAL".
ReplyDelete@Wojcech so fə ði:z əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈsʌðənəz "for it" is [fɔ: ɪt], ˈʃouɪŋ ðət ɪts ˈi:zi tə pɹəˈnæuns ðə tu: væulz wɪˈðæut ə ˈlɪŋkɪŋ a:.
Ed
ReplyDeleteə prɒbləm fə mi: ɪz ðət wɛn aɪ ju:zd trænskrɪptʃn̩ prəfɛʃᵊn̩ᵊli ɪt wəz tʊ ɪndɪkeɪt ɑ: pi: (RP) tə stju:dn̩ts hu: dɪdn̩t ni:d tʊ əpri:ʃieɪt ɛni dɪstɪŋtʃn̩z frəm ʌðə læŋwɪdʒɪz ɔ:r ʌðə daɪəlɛkts əv ɪŋgɪʃ. soʊ aɪ ju:zd ðə sɪmbᵊlz ðət wɜ: nɪərəst tʊ fəmɪlɪə lɛtəz.
ðɪs wəz dʒɛnrəlɪ tru: əv ðə brɪtɪʃ i: ɛf ɛl (EFL) ɪndəstri wɛn aɪ stɑ:tɪd aʊt. mɔ:roʊvə, ɪt ju:stə bi ə prɪnsɪpᵊl əv ði aɪ pi: eɪ (IPA) tə ju:z ðə moʊst fəmɪlɪə lɛtə (rɑ:ðə ðn̩̩ ðə moʊst ɪnfɔ:mətɪv) tʊ meɪk laɪf i:zɪə fə læŋwɪdʒ lɜ:nəz. (ðə wəz ə strɒŋ lɪŋk bɪtwi:n foʊnɪnɪtɪʃn̩z ənd læŋwɪdʒ ti:tʃəz ɪn ðə deɪz bɪfɔ: tʃi:p kəsɛt teɪps ənd pleɪəz).
æz aɪ rɪmɛmbə, ði ədvɑ:nst lɛ:nəz dɪktʃᵊnᵊri (ðə wɒz oʊnli wʌn) ju:zd dʃʌst hɑ:f ə dʌzn̩ vaʊl sɪmbᵊlz.
@David Crosbie:
ReplyDeleteɪt ju:stə bi ə prɪnsɪpᵊl əv ði aɪ pi: eɪ (IPA) tə ju:z ðə moʊst fəmɪlɪə lɛtə (rɑ:ðə ðn̩̩ ðə moʊst ɪnfɔ:mətɪv) tʊ meɪk laɪf i:zɪə fə læŋwɪdʒ lɜ:nəz
bət sʊɚli ðɪs soʊ-kɔːld "prɪnsɪpl" wəz nʌθɪŋ mɔːɚ ðən ætəvɪzm ɔr ɪnɜəʃə. ɪf ɪt wɚ truːli ə "prɪnsɪpl" ðɛn waɪ wəz ɪt nɛvr (ət li:st əntɪl ʌptən) ɪkstɛndɪd tʊ ðə ju:s əv "a" fə ðe træp vaʊəl ?
Ad Ed:
ReplyDeleteˈvɔi̯tɕeχ, the breve should go under the 'i'.
or ˈvɔjtɕeχ, perhaps. Plus the tɕ combine to form one consonant, which takes another breve-like symbol I don't know how to enter.
Ad Richard Sabey:
thank you. It's easy and practical so to pronounce 'for it' indeed, you avoid all the problems with 'the idea-r-is' and stuff...
Gentlemen, don't you think it's somewhat awkward to write like this in the long run? As awkward as to move about by means of a segwey, perhaps?
Re the symbol 'a' in IPA: I too find it strange that it's reserved for a phoneme which occurs so rarely in European languages (if it occurs at all). Whereas the common continental (and Northern English, methinks) 'a' has got to be transcribed 'ä'.
ɪntʃrɛstɪŋ -- ði ɛrɚz ɪn maɪ ɜəliə poʊst (ət liːst ðe wʌnz aɪv noʊtɪst soʊ fɑə) həv ɔːl biːn əv ðə seɪm taɪp: juːs əv roʊmən kærɪktɚz frəm ðə juːʒuəl ɒəθɒgrəfi ɪn pleɪs əv ði æktʃjuəl fənɛtɪk væljuːz.
ReplyDeletepəræps ði aɪ pi: eɪ ɔːt tə bi mɒdɪfaɪd tʊ rɪmuːv ɔːl roʊmən kærɪktɚz ɪn ɒədə tə meɪk ækjʊrət trænskrɪpʃən i:ziɚ!
vp
ReplyDeleteðɪs soʊ-kɔːld "prɪnsɪpl"
ɪt wəz prɪsɪpᵊl nʌmbə 20 ɪn ðə pʌblɪʃt mænɪfɛstoʊ-kʌm-hændbʊk ɒv ði aɪ pi: eɪ.
ðə fʊl tɛkst iksplɪsɪtli rɪfɜ:d tu 'ɔ:dɪnəri brɔ:d trænskrɪpʃn̩' — ə præktɪs noʊ lɒŋgər əv ɪntərɛst aɪðə tə foʊnətɪʃn̩z ɔ: tə ðə læŋgwɪdʒ ti:tʃəz ðeɪ ju:stə sɜ:v.
waɪ wəz ɪt nɛvr (ət li:st əntɪl ʌptən) ɪkstɛndɪd tʊ ðə ju:s əv "a" fə ðe træp vaʊəl ?
bət ɪt wɒz!
ðə vɛri fɜ:st 'spɛsɪmɪn' ɪn 'ðə prɪnsɪpᵊlz əv ði ɪntənæʃn̩ᵊl fənɛtɪk əsoʊsieɪʃn̩' kn̩sɪsts əv θri: vɜ:ʃn̩z trænskraɪbɪŋ 'wʌn vəraɪəti əv sʌðn̩ brɪtɪʃ ɪŋglɪʃ'. ðə fɜ:st ɪz ɪn 'brɔ:d trænscrɪpʃn̩'. ɪt bɪgɪnz:
ðə no:θ wind ənd ðə sʌn wə disˈpju:tiŋ witʃ wəz ðə stroŋgə wen ə travlə keim əloŋ rapt in ə wo:m klouk.
di:teɪld ɪnfəmeɪʃn̩ əz tə vaʊl kwɒlɪti wəz prɪzɛntɪd sɛpərətli ɪn ən ɪntrədʌktəri-kʌm-ɪksplænətəri pærəgrɑ:f. ðʌs:
Short a=a˔ (æ)
ðə sɛkn̩d vɜ:ʃn̩ is 'slaɪtli næroʊə':
ðə nɔ:θ wind ənd ðə sʌn wə disˈpju:tiŋ witʃ wəz ðə strɔŋgə wen ə travlə keim əlɔŋ rapt in ə wɔ:m klouk.
oʊnli ðə θɜ:d 'stɪl næroʊə' vɜ:ʃn̩ wəd mi:t wɪð mɒdən əpru:vᵊl:
ðə ˈnɔ:θ ˈwɪnd ənd ðə ˈsʌn wə dɪsˈpjuˑtɪŋ ˈwɪtʃ wəz ðə ˈstrɒŋgɐ wɛn ə ˈtrævlɐ keɪm əˈlɒŋ ˈræpt in ə ˈwɔ:m ˈkloɷk.
ɪt wəz prɪsɪpᵊl nʌmbə 20
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't have an idiosyncratic pronunciation of principle. That was a typo.
Wojciech
ReplyDeleteGentlemen, don't you think it's somewhat awkward to write like this in the long run?
As a mode of written communication between people who know all English orthography it's a total nonsense — but that surely isn't the purpose.
We're interested in phonetic transcription as a descriptive tool. For some of us an exercise that makes us concentrate on the detail and the consistency of transcription serves to increase our attention in pursuing that interest.
When I was a teacher I had a very different purpose in using transcription. It wasn't for my benefit — it was for the practical benefit of my students.
In a very early job, I trained students to use transcription for pronunciation homework! For that reason, the transcription was very 'broad' indeed. The main except was the use of æ for the TRAP vowel — the (Polish) creator of the course for Italians had a social hang-up. For him an Italian-like vowel would be too vulgar as a substitute for the RP sound.
In later (saner) jobs, the purpose of transcription was to give students information — if only the pronunciation of citation forms. Just once I had a job where it made practical sense to use transcriptions to show weak forms, contractions, rhythm and the like.
When scholars write to a scholarly public in transcription, the purposes are different again. In the early days it served to give members of the IPA and client language teachers some practice in reading and understanding the new coding. Nowadays I suppose it's more likely to serve as a text which exemplifies certain nuances of pronunciation in connected, relaxed, extended speech. Presumably the felling is that the passage they need to represent in transcription makes better sense in the broad context of a whole text in transcrition.
And then there are texts in transcription published simply to teach transcription.
ɪt wəz prɪsɪpᵊl nʌmbə 20 ɪn ðə pʌblɪʃt mænɪfɛstoʊ-kʌm-hændbʊk ɒv ði aɪ pi: eɪ.
ReplyDeletekoʊɪnsɪdɛntli, dʒɒn kwoʊts ət lɛŋθ frəm ðɪs prɪsɪpᵊl ɪn hɪz nɛkst θrɛd What [a] means.
@ Wojciech: Thank you for the transcription of your name! I am not used to [ɕ] or [χ] but I shall practise.
ReplyDeleteAd Ed
ReplyDelete[ɕ] is known only in Danish (spelt sj) for aught I know, in Europe and in Asia in Chinese (spelt x) and Japanese (sh)
But [tɕ] is _one_ consonant, mind you, somewhat like the 'ch' in English.
Living in Yorkshire (in which Thridding, I wonder?) you could afford a trip up north, to Scotland, where they hae a plenty of [χ], in 'Loch' etc.
The name Wojciech (St. Wojciech, a Czech monk, X c.) was made popular in its hypocoristic form 'Wojtek' by the play by Georg Büchner, Woyzeck, and the opera by Alban Berg, Wozzeck.
Ad David Crosbie
I agree with all of what you said. And also the English spelling. Well, it's maybe not total nonsense, and its abstractness is an advantage, e.g. the 'a' letter in 'man', 'cat' and so on, can stand for anything between an Italian 'a' and something like 'ee+schwa', 'meean' --- curm arn, meean! --- as some Americans would say... or take the rhoticity issue, the t-to-d issue, not to speak of next to all English vowels which in a reasonably narrow transcription would have to be transcribed differently. So how should we spelle these days, 'eggys' or 'eyren', as William Caxton asked in 14-something.
But still, I can't help feeling that it's a bit awkward to write in the API transcription. Although I recommend it to my students too.
Wojciech
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to say that English orthography is a total nonsense. I quite approve in many ways.
(Another argument to add to yours is the preservation of stems like electric- in the set
ɪˈlɛktrɪk, ɪlɛkˈtrɪsɪti, ɪlɛkˈtrɪʃn̩.)
No, what I think nonsensical is to choose transcription over orthography as a mode of communication when both parties know the orthography.
Yes it's awkward (and more than a bit) to use transcription when you know the orthography — however sensible the purpose. It's a strain on the writer not to use the orthographic letter or the symbol that's more familiar. And it's a strain on the reader that can't be predicted in may cases.
My wife was obliged to teach Russian Phonetics to British students for a few years. IPA transcription was a disastrous confusion for students who were still coming to terms with the cyrillic alphabet. In the end, she changed to a Russian system of transcription which uses cyrillic letters and symbols based on them.
For non-technical writing about pronunciation, John has given us a wonderful tool with his LEXICAL SETS. For your man, cat and so on we can just write TRAP vowel and be understood both by professional phoneticians and by untrained amateurs with an interest in accents — of whom there are many here in Britain.
Ad David Crosby
ReplyDeletesorry, I got you wrong with nonsense.
Ad to it: nation and national, finite and infinite and a host of others...
I like lexical sets a lot. Re paradigmatic words, of course, they are a great aid, except for splits, and mergers, for instance Bath-trap, and so on... . Btw, I have recently had to speak much on _commands_ in English. What vowel do you have in ..and in this word? I sort of used to think it was the 'father' or 'bath' vowel, but then I suddenly remember'd that:
When Britain first on Heaven's command
Arose out of etc..
This was the charter, the charter of the ?land_
(certainly not *larnd, well, maybe in the days when she actually did arise out of azure main...).
@Wojciech:
ReplyDelete"Command" is a BATH=PALM word for me. However:
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desart. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Wojciech
ReplyDeleteFor me command is a BATH word. In my accent and vp's that means the vowel equates with PALM words. In the city where I grew up (Nottingham) the equation would be with TRAP words.
In Accents of English John breaks BATH words down into subsets 59 and 59' and breaks 59 into sub-subsets (a), (b) and (c). Sub-subset 50b contains words with spelling -an+CONS and -am+CONS — including, of course command.
What John says they have in common is that certain accents (in the Caribbean and the Southern Hemisphere) have the PALM vowel in 59a (staff, path etc) and 59c (calf, shan't etc) but the TRAP vowel in 59b (dance, example etc).
It's important not to assume that the spelling defines the lexical sets. One line of John's listing for the TRAP set is
scalp, lamp, ant, hand, thank, laps, tax.
Both Rule Britannia and Ozymandias use rhymes which are not true rhymes in RP.
Ad VP, David Crosbie.
ReplyDeleteThank you, gentlemen.
These English vowels... Out of context, they do give you some headache. I once met a young Turk (in the literal, not figurative sense, although he was something of the latter too) who spoke with a strong US-accent. Suddenly, out of context, he mentioned a thing he called 'cayairf'. I was puzzled. What is a 'cayairf', I asked perplexed. 'It is the child of a cow', he explained... . I do normally hear American calves for what they are, but it was a bit outside of any consideration of things vituline..
@ Wojciech:
ReplyDeleteI'm from the West Riding. Oddly the speech of the North Riding is generally closer to RP (except right in the north, around Whitby). The East Riding accent is very unusual in Britain and also more stigmatised than the West.
I think that you might be confusing [x] and [χ]. [x] is the sound in Scots "loch" or German "Bach". I have no problem with this. [χ] is the sound for the Dutch "g", and I (like 99% of English people) struggle to produce this sound.
P.S. I like how you said "aught" in your message. That is still used in many parts of Britain. We say it as [ɔʊt] around here. In other areas it is said as
ReplyDeleteaʊt further north
ɐʏt Lancashire
ɔ:t West Country
Ad Ed
ReplyDeleteThank you. Maybe North Riding has a centre with people trying to imitate RP? I don't know the corresponding geography too well.
Yes, I meant 'x' (voiceless). The voiced sound does exist in some archaic variants of Polish (e.g. mine, if only marginally) but it never occurs at the end of a word. Neither does it in Dutch, for aught I know. Besides, many Dutchmen say 'x' in lieu of that phoneme, as much as they say 's' for 'z' or 'f' for 'v'. But Dutch phonology is complex, despite appearances. As is Dutch itself, with various strange words you would not expect, such as 'oienaar' for 'stork' (you would expect 'stork').
'Aught' is nice because it's i. Anglo-Saxon, ii.useful in some contexts, iii. old-fashioned. In fact many anglophone persons don't seem to know this word at all. I pronounce it West Country way, probably because this is what the spelling suggests.
@Wojciech: The voiced sound does exist in some archaic variants of Polish
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find it exists quite happily in most varieties, as an allophone resulting from the assimilation of /x/ to a voiced sound, as in krótkich dni or niech babcia....
Ad wjarek,
ReplyDeleteyes, you're right. But we are not aware of it, are we, as little as we are of the existence of the TRAP-vowel in such words as 'Jaś' or the like. I was referring to non-assimilation-trigger'd voiced x's, such as in 'historia', or 'hańba' (a Bohemism, they say).
'Tis full strange, but now it thinketh me that it is possible to say 'niech babcia...' and such and yet not to assimilate (voice). Am I wrong? And also, do those with 'voicing-interword-phonetics' (natives of Polonia Major and Minor) say 'dach i ściany' with a voiced 'ch'?
@ Wojciech: the existence of the TRAP-vowel in such words as 'Jaś'
ReplyDeleteNot sure about this one. That's what it's always been presented as, but I have an inkling that the main thing that happens is that the vowel is raised, not fronted. I may get back to you with some hard data next year ;)
a Bohemism, they say
Really? I shouldn't admit, but I don't know quite as much as I should about different varieties of Polish. I've always thought it's an Eastern feature (cf. Ukrainian).
do those with 'voicing...
I think they do, at least around here in Hauptstadt Posen.
BTW, I think that the thing in historia etc. was/is a voiced glottal fricative, i.e. [ɦ]. I had a history teacher in the secondary school who did this all the time (as you could imagine). (I didn’t have the phonetic expertise back then to really judge but when I think of her pronunciation in retrospect, that’s what I think it was. BTW, she was originally from Vilnius.) Doesn’t it provide the connection between Hitler and Гітлер/Гитлер?
ReplyDeleteWell, I have read it somewhere, maybe in Milewski: hańba is a Bohemism. As is 'obywatel' (citizen). There is a 'hanba' in Czech, AND 'gan'ba' in Ukrainian (g=h), but this latter word may be a Polonism, like so much else in Ukrainian. A Polonism originally a Bohemism, then. In Russian the word doesn't seem to exist, to root is 'ganić', scold, chide, rebuke, disapprove expressly.
ReplyDeleteRe h --- in my pronunciation at least it is a velar fricative, voiced. But I am not sure about the Vilnius/Wilno, my late father was from Wilno itself, working class, and had nothing of this kind at all. I think it's a Ruthenian phoneme, originally, plus some Czech influence, plus some 'class consciousness' of our gentry. Lithuanian itself does not have anything of this kind, and even [x] is an imported phoneme in it. Your teacher's pronunciation may have been some sort of affectation.
Our Polish [x] is pronounced with less friction than say in German, Dutch or Scottish, or for that matter Spanish (Juan, jerez...), and given that voiced phones are usually weaker than the correspective voiceless ones, our voiced [x] may sometimes sound like the phone you described. This, plus a habit of translating Ukrainian and Southern Russian sounds into Muscovite might have given rise to 'Gitler', 'geroi' (hero) and the rest of it.
I find it very difficult to say correctly in Dutch (which I sometimes try to speak): heel goed (very good), because of the h-g sequence, probably no problem for the Dutch. I sometimes say 'geel hoed' or even 'heel hoet'. Another reason to be parsimonious with praise in the idiom of Leeuwenhoek.
@ Wojciech: I don't think it's a question of the history of lexical items such as hańba. What I'm saying is that Ukrainian represents a voiced glottal fricative (I think). Thus, /h/ (as in Hitler) would be (mis)heard as [ɦ] and thus written . How much this has to do with Russian -- I don't know. We'd have to know if older forms of Russian had a fricative ... (Thinking aloud in public. I should go do some research instead...)
ReplyDeleteAnyway, there certainly is an Eastern connection for [ɦ].
(I'm not talking of the voiced velar thing. BTW, do you really have a voiced velar for ? I've never noticed this variant...)
I have a velar thing. It's a rare sound anyway, so you rarely hear anything like that at all.
ReplyDeleteUkrainian, White-Russian and Southern Russian dialects have the voiced [x] in lieu of [g], spelt as 'g' (in Cyrillic). And since that sound sounds somewhat similar to [h], the latter was substituted-for by that U., W.-H. and S.R. sound, spelt 'g' in Cyrillic, in the hope as it were that even a non-Southern Muscovite will pronounce it in the regional fashion, approximating thereby the original pronunciation. That is at least what I have always seemed to know as an explanation of 'Gitler' and Co.
Older borrowings of /h/ into Russian were consistently spelled with g, modern ones with x.
ReplyDeletewʌn ʌv ðə bɛst θɪŋz əbaʊt ridɪ̩ŋ ɪŋglɪʃ tɛkst ɪn trænskripʃn̩ ɪz ði əbɪləti tu akʃəli hir, æz it wɚ, ðe vɔisəz ʌv sʌm ʌv ðə rɛgjəlr̩ məmbr̩z ʌv ðə fn̩ɛtɪk-blɑg cəmjunəti. Wən ɑi rid ðə cnvɛntʃn̩l̩i ritn wɚdz oʊnli, ɑi hir ðm̩ ɪn maɪ oʊn æksɛnt ʌnlɛs ɑi teɪk greɪt peɪnz tə meɪk ɪt ʌðɚwɑiz.
Older borrowings of /h/ into Russian were consistently spelled with g, modern ones with x.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone who didn't see it when I posted before, here's an example of how a Russian reference book lists
different generations of Huxleys
Hoping for some help.
ReplyDeleteTaking a TEFL course and having to translate the below written in IPA.
Any helpful links or assistance would be appreciated.
robert@volunteerinn.net
Please translate the following 2 texts, written in IPA, into written English.
| ə ˈmærɪd mæn wəz ˈhævɪŋ ən əˈfeə wɪð ɪz ˈsekrətəri |
wʌn deɪ | ðeə ˈpæʃn̩z ˌəʊvəˈkeɪm ðəm ənd ˈðeɪ tʊk ɒf fə hə ˈhaʊs |
weə ˈðeɪ meɪd ˈpæʃənət lʌv ɔːl ˌɑːftəˈnuːn | ɪɡˈzɔːstɪd frəm ði ˌæftərˈnuːnz ɪɡˈzɜːʃn̩z
| ˈðeɪ fel əˈsliːp | əˈweɪkənɪŋ əˈraʊnd eɪt | ˌpiːˈem | əz ðə mæn θruː ɒn ɪz kləʊðz |
hi təʊld ðə ˈwʊmən tə teɪk ɪz ʃuːz ˌaʊtˈsaɪd ənd rʌb ðəm θruː ðə ɡrɑːs ənd ɔlˈðoʊ|
ˈmɪstɪfaɪd | ʃi ˌnʌnðəˈles kəmˈplaɪd | hi slɪpt ˈɪntə ɪz ʃuːz ənd drəʊv həʊm |
weə həv ju biːn | dɪˈmɑːndɪd ɪz waɪf wen hi ˈentəd ðə ˈhaʊs |ˈdɑːlɪŋ | ˈaɪ kɑːnt laɪ tə ju |
aɪv biːn ˈhævɪŋ ən əˈfeə wɪð maɪ ˈsekrətəri ənd wiv biːn ˈhævɪŋ seks ɔːl ˌɑːftəˈnuːn |
ˈaɪ fel əˈsliːp ənd ˈdɪdnt weɪk ʌp ʌnˈtɪl eɪt əˈklɒk | ðə waɪf ɡlɑːnst daʊn ət ɪz ʃuːz ənd ˈsed |
ju məst θɪŋk ˈaɪ əm ˈstjuːpɪd | juv biːn ˈpleɪɪŋ ɡɒlf |
| ðə wəz ə bəˈbuːn |
huː wʌn ˌɑːftəˈnuːn |
ˈsed ˈaɪ θɪŋk ˈaɪ wl flaɪ tə ðə sʌn |
səʊ wɪð ˈɡreɪt pɑːmz |
stræpt tu ɪz ɑːmz |
hi ˈstɑːtɪd hi ˈteɪˌkɒf rʌn |
maɪl ˈɑːftə maɪl |
hi ˈɡæləpt ɪn staɪl |
bət ˈnevə wʌns left ðə ɡraʊnd |
jə ˈɡəʊɪŋ tuː sləʊ ˈsed ə ˈpɑːsɪŋ krəʊ |
traɪ ˈriːtʃɪŋ ðə spiːd əv saʊnd |
| səʊ |
hi ˈpʊt ɒn ə spɜːt |
baɪ ɡɒd ˈhaʊ ɪt hɜːt |
bəʊθ ðə səʊlz əv ɪz fiːt ˈkɔːt ɒn ˈfaɪə |
əz hi went θruː ə striːm |
ðə wə ˈɡreɪt klaʊdz əv stiːm |
bət hi ˈnevə ˈɡɒt ˈeni ˈhaɪə |
|reɪsɪŋ ɒn θruː ðə naɪt |
bəʊθ ɪz niːz ˈkɔːt əˈlaɪt |
klaʊdz əv sməʊk ˈbɪləʊd aʊt əv ɪz rɪə |
kwɪk tu ɪz eɪd |
wə ðə ˈfaɪə brɪˈɡeɪd |
ˈðeɪ tʃeɪst ɪm fər ˈəʊvər ə jɜː |
ˈmeni muːnz pɑːst baɪ |
dɪd bəˈbuːn ˈevə flaɪ |
dɪd hi ˈevə ˈɡet tə ðə sʌn |
aɪv dʒəst hɜːd təˈdeɪ |
hiz wel ɒn ɪz ˈweɪ |
hil bi ˈpɑːsɪŋ || θruː ˈæktən ət wʌn |
Robert -- This is not an appropriate message to post as a comment.
Delete1. If your course tutor has set you this task as an exercise, try and do it yourself. If you just ask someone else for the answer, you will get no benefit from it.
2. You cannot "translate" these passages (into English). They are already in English. The verb you need is "transcribe" (or even "decipher").
3. If you were able to read and understand my original posting, you should have no difficulty with the task you have been set.