tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post5420705540578878279..comments2024-03-17T09:14:13.950+00:00Comments on John Wells’s phonetic blog: HaitiJohn Wellshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-59309539333249632602019-07-10T21:39:20.665+01:002019-07-10T21:39:20.665+01:00Great history of Haiti shared by blogger. Such an ...Great history of Haiti shared by blogger. Such an awesome work made by one of the best blogger. We also found something interesting about <a href="https://gumroad.com/l/zipcodes" rel="nofollow">zip code</a>. Get your current location address with zip code in whole world. Merely Rendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17207845566744753989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-66890829995076844042010-01-24T15:49:53.445+00:002010-01-24T15:49:53.445+00:00in some Gaelic-influenced dialects of BrE wh- is r...<i>in some Gaelic-influenced dialects of BrE wh- is regularly [xw]. Almost Anglo-Saxon!</i><br /><br />There's an episode of Family Guy that revolves entirely about pronunciation of <i>wh</i> as [xʷ]. It's on YouTube somewhere.David Marjanovićnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-44395247795422522932010-01-22T00:26:46.828+00:002010-01-22T00:26:46.828+00:00In "latex, syntax" t is definitely [tʰ]....In "latex, syntax" t is definitely [tʰ]."<br /><br />Really? In GenAm? I have never heard aspiration here (in a noninitial, nonstressed syllable), except in certain varieties of London speech.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-38568483546683665462010-01-21T22:43:48.058+00:002010-01-21T22:43:48.058+00:00@Lipman: Yes, the limitations of eye-dialect cut b...@Lipman: Yes, the limitations of eye-dialect cut both ways, but I do expect better from dictionaries.<br /><br />@Kraut: "I'm afraid I can't fully agree with you on this statement. What about "at all". Don't you flap the /t/ here? It's a [ɾ], isn't it?"<br /><br />[ɾ] is phonetically wrong for me (and for many other speakers of AmE), where t is between vowels in words such as <i>Haiti</i>, and a phrase such as <i>what a dump</i>. That is because my tapped r [ɾ] is post-alveolar (I don't use it in my every day speech, but I do in accents that call for it: RP ca. 1930 springs to mind.) My voiced t, on the other hand, is alveolar. I can feel the difference when I speak, even if others might not hear it.<br /><br />For many other speakers of AmE, [ɾ] would be a perfectly good symbol to describe the t sound in the middle of "Haiti" (as most Americans pronounce it), - but it's counter-intuitive for me to use that symbol for the sound, even if correct. I associate it too strongly with the letter r.<br /><br />"And what about words such as 'latex, syntax' or 'quite obvious, get over here, start off' and a few others?"<br /><br />For most Americans, these are not all the the same thing. In "latex, syntax" t is definitely [tʰ]. In the short phrases you mention, and also "at all,", the tendency of most Americans is to use voiced t, even thought you'd think these phrases would be analogous to "latex, syntax." I don't know why they aren't, but they aren't.<br /><br />There are American speakers who do "pop the t" in those phrases - mostly from parts of the American south, I think. <br /><br />@vp: Put that way, I'd have to say you're right, but I still wouldn't put d in the dictionary for those words, because there are more than enough Americans for whom it really isn't true. And isn't the OAD making phonemic distinctions, not phonetic ones? If the version I've just looked at on Amazon is anything to go by, OAD doesn't even use the IPA. So there's really no excuse for their putting a d in "Haiti."<br /><br />(I confess to being puzzled as to why someone who wanted a good American dictionary would buy one from Oxford. OAD has, just for example, entries for A4 and A5 (paper sizes), and these are not American English. Merriam-Webster would surely be the obvious choice. I suppose there must be a good reason, but I'm baffled.)<br /><br />In my own speech, the distinction between "latter" and "ladder" is pretty subtle (not suddle!) but I do feel a difference most of the time. The more rapidly I speak, the more the distinction disappears into a merger of t with d, but then the d is as much devoiced as the t is voiced.<br /><br />As for the spelling error: Yikes! I haven't come across that one before. I really don't think I could describe my own pronunciation of "subtle" as having a d in it. Just a t, sometimes fully unvoiced, sometimes voiced, but not ever an actual d.<br /><br />(I suppose I've made things less clear than I might have, by saying "voiced t" instead of "partly voiced t.")<br /><br />I'm a lousy typist, but my spelling is too good to wrap my mind around "suddle." You've provided the evidence, but I just can't fully take it in.Amy Stollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067839246823753590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-84129402775122295042010-01-20T21:47:22.332+00:002010-01-20T21:47:22.332+00:00@Amy:
Many US speakers do lose the distinction be...@Amy:<br /><br />Many US speakers do lose the distinction between /t/ and /d/ intervocalically, regardless of what the _phonetic_ output is. For evidence, see <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22very+suddle%22&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq=" rel="nofollow">"very suddle"</a> as a typographical error for "very subtle".vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-52448765131493848732010-01-20T21:10:51.263+00:002010-01-20T21:10:51.263+00:00Of course you could analyse [nts] as underlying /n...Of course you could analyse [nts] as underlying /ns/ for speakers who don't have [ns], but you'd have to complicate the rule for the formation of plural nouns/third person verbs so that they allow for /prInt/ to become /prIns/, and I can see little good reason to do that. I'd prefer to say that their phonotactics doesn't allow /ns/.<br /><br />And flapping does not depend directly on stress, but on the position in the syllable; you can flap the t in <i>at all</i>, for example, even if it's pre-tonic. I think the environment in which that happens typically are /Vt.V/, /Vrt.V/ and (in America) /nt.V/, where syllabic l and m count as V's. But Freddie Mercury sometimes also flapped them pre-pausally.army1987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-69428321006455730382010-01-20T20:57:03.067+00:002010-01-20T20:57:03.067+00:00@Amy:
You say: "What most Americans use for t...@Amy:<br />You say: "What most Americans use for t between vowels - provided the syllable before the t is the stressed one - is a voiced t [t̬]": I'm afraid I can't fully agree with you on this statement. What about "at all". Don't you flap the /t/ here? It's a [ɾ], isn't it? And what about words such as 'latex, syntax' or 'quite obvious, get over here, start off' and a few others?Krauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11932831673529849848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-4779916181319931812010-01-20T19:01:42.496+00:002010-01-20T19:01:42.496+00:00That notion was made popular by British phoneticia...That notion was made popular by British phoneticians as a revenge for your papers claiming we say veddy vor very.Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-210152780028673272010-01-20T18:53:15.962+00:002010-01-20T18:53:15.962+00:00@mallamb: "in some Gaelic-influenced dialects...@mallamb: "in some Gaelic-influenced dialects of BrE wh- is regularly [xw]. Almost Anglo-Saxon! […]<br /><br />Oy vey. My head is spinning. I'll read that more carefully and try to take it all in another time!<br /><br />@alarob: "I have noticed American reporters pronouncing "Haiti" with a voiced 'd' instead of 't,' […] The Oxford American Dictionary that came with my Mac tells me we Americans are expected to use 'd.'"<br /><br />I have not been listening to American "reporters" because what passes for "news" in the US bears the same relationship to news that my ass does to my elbow. But if the OAD really says that Americans use a d in <i>Haiti</i>, than the OAD, like the law, is a ass. What most Americans use for t between vowels - provided the syllable <i>before</i> the t is the stressed one - is a voiced t [t̬] (in case it doesn't read correctly, the diacritic is meant to be a subscript wedge. I think of it as a tiny little v (as in <i>voiced</i>) beneath an otherwise voiceless consonant). Some people use [ɾ] to indicate this sound, which I suppose is a reasonable choice for anyone who makes their r sounds as alveolars. My ɹ, ɾ, and r are post-alveolar, so that would not be a good choice for me.<br /><br />For those of my clients who can't or don't want to read IPA, I advise them to notate the voiced t as "t/d" — "half t, half d." It may not be pretty, but it works!<br /><br />Not that I'm opinionated or anything ... but Americans do NOT say d in place of t. We just don't. Stupid dictionaries ...Amy Stollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067839246823753590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-259191580656633662010-01-20T18:26:06.588+00:002010-01-20T18:26:06.588+00:00@Kraut: All part of the service!
@mallamb: "...@Kraut: All part of the service!<br /><br />@mallamb: "Amy &Co, my guess is that that is for zuˈɑlədʒi, with the strong w glide that u has in AmE and the broken ʊw reduced to əw. But conceivably it could also be the ow of zoˈwɑlədʒi reduced to əw. Any thoughts?"<br /><br />My first thought is that personally, I say zoʊˈɑlɪdʒi, though perhaps zoʊˈɑlədʒi when speaking especially rapidly.<br /><br />My second thought is that there is a (fairly) popular book here in Leftpondia called <i>There Is No Zoo in Zoology: And Other Beastly Mispronunciations</i>, by Charles Harrington Elster. I have never read it, and I suspect from the subtitle that I'd find it full of regrettable overstatements if not outright errors, but the title is catchy — I've never forgotten it.<br /><br />My third thought (three thoughts in one day!) is that <i>probably</i> most Americans pronounce <i>zoology</i> more or less as zuˈɑlədʒi or zʊˈɑlədʒi, but that a <i>strong</i> w glide is pretty much limited, at least in my experience, to broad Noo Yawk accents. It is, of course, entirely possible that you mean something different by "strong" than what I read into it. <br />Let me remind the reader(s) that:<br /><br />(a) My own experience of American accents is necessarily limited;<br />(b) I'm fundamentally self-taught, hence the greater number of large gaps than filled-in places in my knowledge and understanding of phonetics;<br />(c) I'm not an American, I'm a New Yorker!Amy Stollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067839246823753590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-43482368659929892872010-01-20T11:09:47.943+00:002010-01-20T11:09:47.943+00:00Sorry, hadn't refreshed, so I hadn't seen ...Sorry, hadn't refreshed, so I hadn't seen the last six comments.Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-48950518887584862912010-01-20T11:05:03.103+00:002010-01-20T11:05:03.103+00:001. nasal x
2. fine
Opera, no extra fonts installe...1. nasal x<br />2. fine<br /><br />Opera, no extra fonts installed or settings changed. Here's the source code:<br /><Variable name="bodyfont" description="Text Font"<br />type="font"<br />default="normal normal 100% Verdana, sans-serif">Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-25608574546919800812010-01-20T10:57:37.114+00:002010-01-20T10:57:37.114+00:00@wiarek: Thanks for drawing my attention to the ca...@wiarek: Thanks for drawing my attention to the cause(s) of the problem and the solution. The Microsoft update can be found here:<br />http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=0ec6f335-c3de-44c5-a13d-a1e7cea5ddea&DisplayLang=enKrauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11932831673529849848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-45538673311053008842010-01-20T10:55:38.716+00:002010-01-20T10:55:38.716+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Krauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11932831673529849848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-73734614589811973432010-01-20T10:55:22.799+00:002010-01-20T10:55:22.799+00:00@Kraut: Yes, you can do that, too. But then you...@Kraut: Yes, you can do that, too. But then you'll be using the same Unicode font everywhere in FF, and the behaviour won't be fixed in e.g. Word. Updating the font is a system-wide solution.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034958113049420062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-81488282907072903732010-01-20T10:52:33.352+00:002010-01-20T10:52:33.352+00:00BTW, the elision in last night above was totally a...BTW, the elision in <i>last night</i> above was totally accidental. But how appropriate for this venue!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034958113049420062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-27053321755003110062010-01-20T10:51:15.728+00:002010-01-20T10:51:15.728+00:00For Firefox users (tested with v3.5 under WIN):
1....For Firefox users (tested with v3.5 under WIN):<br />1. Have a unicode-compliant font installed;<br />2. Under Tools -> Options -> Content push the button "Advanced..." next to "Fonts & Colors".<br />3. Disallow pages to choose their own fonts.<br />4. Select a unicode font for both serifed and non-serifed fonts.<br />5. Press OK.<br />Hope that helps!Krauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11932831673529849848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-27032768693157805492010-01-20T10:50:47.024+00:002010-01-20T10:50:47.024+00:00@Kraut: Nope, the problem is Verdana, as described...@Kraut: Nope, the problem is Verdana, as described <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdana#Combining_characters_bug" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I can attest that the fix they describe works 100% correct, and that's why it mainly affects people on FF/XP. As they say, and as I wrote las night, Opera does have an internal fix but underlyingly it's a font problem.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034958113049420062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-18521825745970060232010-01-20T10:29:40.643+00:002010-01-20T10:29:40.643+00:00The bl**dy tilde positiong problem is a matter of ...The bl**dy tilde positiong problem is a matter of your browser option settings and the fonts that you have on your harddisk:<br />pɔtopx͂ɛs 1. tilde, 2. epsilon<br />pɔtopxɛ͂s 1. epsilon 2. tildeKrauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11932831673529849848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-70845525222993558652010-01-20T08:27:46.767+00:002010-01-20T08:27:46.767+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Krauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11932831673529849848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-70809663744818659522010-01-19T23:03:58.675+00:002010-01-19T23:03:58.675+00:00OK, a quick update: On my (old) XP machine, it'...OK, a quick update: On my (old) XP machine, it's Verdana that's doing this. If you want to know if your system is susceptible to this, check <a href="http://ifa.amu.edu.pl/~wjarek/diacritics/prince.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Annoyingly, Word 2007 is doing exactly the same.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034958113049420062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-30412300961237421572010-01-19T22:36:56.792+00:002010-01-19T22:36:56.792+00:00Well, dear fellow readers, it seems to me that at ...Well, dear fellow readers, it seems to me that at least on Windows XP there is indeed something strange going on with the fonts. I've actually taken a couple of screenshots from Firefox 3.5.7 and Opera 10.01. You can see them <a href="http://ifa.amu.edu.pl/~wjarek/diacritics/diacritics.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Same font (DejaVu Sans), same system.<br /><br />On my machine, Opera does it right but FF seems to have the problem people have been describing. It looks like they differ in how they mix the "general" font with the font required for IPA. Look at the shapes of "j" and "y". Opera is smart enough to use DejaVu for the <i>whole</i> transcription, thus rendering the diacritics in the correct places. FF mixes the two fonts (which is also apparent from the somewhat uneven size after zooming in so much -- I did zoom in a lot for the screenshots), and the interaction causes the problem.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034958113049420062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-90833370244997348772010-01-19T20:06:01.789+00:002010-01-19T20:06:01.789+00:00I have noticed American reporters pronouncing &quo...I have noticed American reporters pronouncing "Haiti" with a voiced "d" instead of "t," although the NBC live broadcasts from the island seem to favor the "t." The Oxford American Dictionary that came with my Mac tells me we Americans are expected to use "d."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-33462401900736056202010-01-19T16:40:33.100+00:002010-01-19T16:40:33.100+00:00@mallamb:
If I understand your discussion of &quo...@mallamb:<br /><br />If I understand your discussion of "prince" correctly, you are saying, in the terminology of Accents of English, that the distinction between /nts/ and /ns/ is neutralized for some speakers.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-30862586460007959702010-01-19T15:12:31.454+00:002010-01-19T15:12:31.454+00:00Thank you James for that truly relevant update. Mo...Thank you James for that truly relevant update. Most enlightening and reassuring. But there are no tsarinas around here to mug for the funds for new print editions. The OED online sub is ruinous enough. They occasionally try to mug me for the latest CD, but it would probably be even more ruinous to keep getting updates of that.<br /><br />They are also pushing a new periodical revoltingly called Illuminea. How do they intend one to pronounce THAT inanity? At least when the idiots at the Post Office squandered vast sums on the idiotic rebranding "Consignia" and more vast sums to change it back again, the opening fanfare included the pronunciation.<br /><br />OUP cannot I think realize that there are any number of other things also given this name, probably by the same superstar admen, but the others are not at the same risk of making themselves the laughing-stock of the literate world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com