tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post6322961178612479287..comments2024-03-17T09:14:13.950+00:00Comments on John Wells’s phonetic blog: a loaded questionJohn Wellshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-89538900725200952452010-03-30T10:48:40.060+01:002010-03-30T10:48:40.060+01:00Is that a syllabic n or a syllabic N (ŋ), vp? Not ...Is that a syllabic n or a syllabic N (ŋ), vp? Not that either would be possible, because it seems to me that with either of the un- prefixes there is clearly secondary stress. Notice how it actually gets primary stress in German for example.<br /><br />Me, not only would I not reduce the ʌ, but I would hardly ever assimilate the n!<br /><br />I ask because you haven't been using Sampa, and talk indifferently about syllabic m and syllabic M.mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-78339256382248005722010-03-30T02:21:01.269+01:002010-03-30T02:21:01.269+01:00@mallamb:
"Umbilical" may well be influ...@mallamb:<br /><br />"Umbilical" may well be influenced by childbirth classes I took in the US :)<br /><br />My STRUT phoneme is definitely distinct from schwa. In a word like "unclear", for example, I cannot make the first syllable into a syllabic N.<br /><br />Let me get back to you on the scolding....vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-86395957367200703312010-03-29T17:49:35.661+01:002010-03-29T17:49:35.661+01:00vp,
I agree with Anon. I'm hard-pushed to ima...vp,<br /><br />I agree with Anon. I'm hard-pushed to imagine "ambassador" and "umbilical" with such weakened first syllables as to be capable of becoming syllabic m. Especially "umbilical" which for me is one of the very few words which make it possible to view ʌ as a different phoneme from ə, as I am not convinced by examples in which the ʌ has any secondary stress, and I admit it's implausible to say that it has any in "umbilical".<br /><br />Did you see my most recent answers to your last post on the "scolding" thread we so heroically kept going throughout John's break? I was hoping you still might be able to throw some light on the question of morphophonological length.mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-19878209250769054642010-03-29T13:30:40.452+01:002010-03-29T13:30:40.452+01:00mmm...mmm...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-33188511046251608792010-03-29T09:08:18.181+01:002010-03-29T09:08:18.181+01:00For me, and probably for other speakers with split...For me, and probably for other speakers with split weak vowels, syllabic m almost always occurs post-tonically (after the accented syllables). The only exceptions I can think of are "ambassador" and "umbilical", when said with weakened first syllables. <br /><br />In words such as "empirical" or "embarrass" I have a vowel phonetically identical to KIT, which cannot lead to syllabic M.<br /><br />[Word verification was RINGE -- an allusion to the distinguished Indo-Europeanist?]vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.com