tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post8738987047000355031..comments2024-03-17T09:14:13.950+00:00Comments on John Wells’s phonetic blog: STRUT and commAJohn Wellshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-85132061917384816732010-07-14T23:58:39.524+01:002010-07-14T23:58:39.524+01:00"Of" and "from" still have the..."Of" and "from" still have the LOT vowel in much of the American South. This might be changing though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-9952457483295730842010-07-14T14:20:29.533+01:002010-07-14T14:20:29.533+01:00JHJ
Now that you mention it, I see that I too can...JHJ<br /><br />Now that you mention it, I see that I too can use the STRUT vowel in both. Thus I have three possibilities:<br /><br /><b>sʌb'vɜ:ʃn</b> — 'act of subverting'<br /><b>səb'vɜ:ʃn</b> — ditto<br /><b>'sʌb 'vɜ:ʃn</b>— 'subdivision of a version'<br /><br />I can't imagine saying the third other than as two quasi-words.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-3290011227415249642010-07-14T14:00:40.017+01:002010-07-14T14:00:40.017+01:00@John Cowan: Ms as /məz/ is given in the OED for b...@John Cowan: Ms as /məz/ is given in the OED for both British and American English, as the second pronunciation in both cases. The OED's "American" transcription merges schwa and STRUT, but its "British" one (Upton's) does not.<br /><br />@Richard Sabey: I have STRUT in both of those (due to the Northern tendency to use full vowels before consonant clusters) and agree that they differ in stress as described by Lipman.JHJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03257258313943639485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-19772958849168509802010-07-14T13:58:27.942+01:002010-07-14T13:58:27.942+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.JHJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03257258313943639485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-68244417417127873362010-07-14T13:58:19.851+01:002010-07-14T13:58:19.851+01:00John Cowan
It came into Britain in written form, ...John Cowan<br /><br />It came into Britain in written form, and that is how it has stayed in my experience. <br /><br />Yes, I've heard Americans say <i>miz</i>, but that's not really relevant. <br /><br />My guess is that the British speakers that I've heard have generally swallowed the word. And it's not unusual to hear it <br /><br />-- completely unstressed<br />-- with stressed <i>schwa</i><br />-- with stressed or unstressed syllabic <b>z</b>David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-34996507679166122812010-07-14T13:56:08.525+01:002010-07-14T13:56:08.525+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-45890116118563960752010-07-14T13:19:59.743+01:002010-07-14T13:19:59.743+01:00I am astonished to hear people speak of pronouncin...I am astonished to hear people speak of pronouncing <i>Ms.</i> with a vowel other than KIT, the vowel of <i>Miss</i> and <i>Mrs.</i> Perhaps this is because the word originated in AmE and came into BrE in written form? I have even seen it spelled <i>Miz</i> or <i>Mizz</i> in dialogue, when used for direct address rather than as a title.<br /><br />(In AmE, <i>Ms.</i> has pretty much displaced <i>Miss</i> as a title for women above the age of discretion, leaving women who marry the choice of changing to <i>Mrs.</i> or keeping <i>Ms.</i> — my mother was <i>Mrs. Cowan</i>, my wife is <i>Ms. Cowan</i>. <i>Miss</i> remains in use for directly addressing a situational-servant such as a store employee or waitress.)John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-32043575002636282862010-07-14T09:26:42.671+01:002010-07-14T09:26:42.671+01:00The former is sub'version, the latter 'sub...The former is sub'version, the latter 'subversion or 'sub'version. In American Southern accents, the stress might be somewhat equal (not sure exactly), but there COMMA and STRUT are the same in all positions.Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-82462319013521123102010-07-14T09:06:02.323+01:002010-07-14T09:06:02.323+01:00For a minimal pair, how about:
/səb/version: an a...For a minimal pair, how about:<br /><br />/səb/version: an act of subverting<br />/sʌb/version: a subdivision of a versionRichard Sabeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06707961497644079468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-49862450031455706002010-07-14T01:06:24.372+01:002010-07-14T01:06:24.372+01:00Neither /ˈprɒd.ʌkt/ v. /ˈprɒd.əkt/, nor /ˈɪnd.əs.t...Neither /ˈprɒd.<b>ʌ</b>kt/ v. /ˈprɒd.<b>ə</b>kt/, nor /ˈɪnd.<b>ə</b>s.tri/ v. /ˈɪnd.<b>ʌ</b>s.tri/ constitute minimal pairs of course, but I believe for both words there are speakers for whom the difference between the two variants is clearly discernible. Whether you ascribe this difference to degree of stress or to a “weak-strong vowel” distinction, is a matter of linguistic taste, I suppose. I’d personally favour the latter, which is probably yet another important innovation by J. Wells. (Although in strictly diachronic contexts I’d prefer the traditional “reduced” v. “full” vowel, but this is merely a matter of terminology.) Otherwise nearly all vowel phonemes in Present-Day English should be claimed to have the schwa as a sort of "allophone" (as some dictionaries actually do -- if only implicitly -- and transcribe the schwa with various vowel symbols in italics).Mitko Sabevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05716261390693316374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-48109178720918073842010-07-14T00:57:37.490+01:002010-07-14T00:57:37.490+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mitko Sabevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05716261390693316374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-19374876945581385552010-07-13T23:33:21.444+01:002010-07-13T23:33:21.444+01:00Regarding the phoemic home for schwa, it's lar...Regarding the phoemic home for schwa, it's largely a matter of linguistic creed. Schwa is at one end of a range of pronunciations of can, but, on etc from fully accented to fully reduced, and is then a weakened version of each respective vowel phoneme. OK in some creeds, not in others.Sidney Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01138711082469220983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-9935460405435068252010-07-13T23:11:12.809+01:002010-07-13T23:11:12.809+01:00@David Crosbie:
I grew up in the West Midlands (B...@David Crosbie:<br /><br />I grew up in the West Midlands (Birmingham). I fancy that what happened is this: my schwa in "does" is regional while my STRUT in the same word is RP, and rather than one supplanting the other they both coexist in my phonological ecosystem :)vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-18372170806684595182010-07-13T19:36:02.299+01:002010-07-13T19:36:02.299+01:00JHJ
I have a stressed schwa in Ms — but I don'...JHJ<br /><br />I have a stressed <b>schwa</b> in <i>Ms</i> — but I don't feel it to be an English word. <br /><br />That's not an intellectual judgement. Instinctively and unthinkingly, it's just like including a foreign word in an English sentence.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-35444795142869166302010-07-13T19:28:58.830+01:002010-07-13T19:28:58.830+01:00vp
I misread your English Midlands as East Midlan...vp<br /><br />I misread your <i>English Midlands</i> as <i>East Midlands</i>, which was puzzling. You seemed to be describing the same accent conditions as mine, and yet my <i>buzz</i> will always rhyme with my fully-stressed <i>does</i>.<br /><br />My parents were both RP-speakers for different reasons — my father went to a boarding school and my mother paid for elocution lessons. So RP was my target accent, and any East Midland (Nottingham in my case) influence was fragmentary and unsystematic. When as a little boy I once said <i>come</i> with a FOOT vowel, my mother pounced to weed it out early. She knew the <b>value</b> of an RP accent in every sense — including monetary value.<br /><br />My STRUT vowel may have a slight Nottingham quality, but failed to merge with my FOOT. And my <i>does</i> is either stressed with a STRUT vowel or unstressed with a commA vowel. You seem to have a stressed <i>schwa</i> — which to me would be a distinct third sound — for use in stressed <i>does</i>.<br /><br />I may be misreading John's <i>Accents of English</i>, but I take him to say that in the East Midlands you either distinguish STRUT and FOOT or you don't, while in the West Midlands it may vary from word to word. Could this lie behind your <i>does</i>-pronouncing repertoire?David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-9178547570340585902010-07-13T18:05:36.656+01:002010-07-13T18:05:36.656+01:00vp, I think the merger is a matter of American acc...vp, I think the merger is a matter of American accents. But I wonder where the stressed schwa variety comes from anyway. But most importantly - yes! We sang that in our school choir ages ago. Back then, I didn't even realise it was a limerick. The stress in this musical setting was on the [z], by they way.<br /><br />The stressed schwa is all the more interesting as it isn't followed by a(n historical) /r/, as in <i>were</i>, as it were, which most people today pronounce with the NURSE vowel when stressed, not with the SQUARE vowel, probably because it's basically a stressed schwa.Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-19675164653743306952010-07-13T17:30:07.590+01:002010-07-13T17:30:07.590+01:00Regarding restressing, I've noticed that some ...Regarding restressing, I've noticed that some people have /æ/ as a strong version of the article 'a' (typically only in contrastive situations for emphasis), rather than /ej/. Is this just a weird emphasis effect, or do you think that's a new underlying form created by restressing?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845139257399756782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-38284564273656667752010-07-13T17:27:42.290+01:002010-07-13T17:27:42.290+01:00@vp: I have something similar, but with "but&...@vp: I have something similar, but with "but". There's also the case of "Ms", which I pronounce /məz/ and which definitely doesn't rhyme with "buzz".JHJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03257258313943639485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-59143096520653841612010-07-13T16:45:10.253+01:002010-07-13T16:45:10.253+01:00They are emphatically not allophones for me. In a...They are emphatically not allophones for me. In addition to the minimal pairs you have cited, I have a single lexical item, "does", which can receive either schwa or STRUT when stressed (the STRUT version being more emphatic). I don't know how common this is: I grew up with a near-RP accent in the English Midlands.<br /><br />So, in the limerick:<br /><br />There was an Old Man in a tree,<br />Who was horribly bored by a Bee;<br />When they said, 'Does it buzz?'<br />He replied, 'Yes, it does!'<br />'It's a regular brute of a Bee!'<br /><br />the third and fourth lines don't rhyme if I choose to use my schwa for "does" (I have no such choice for "buzz", which can only have STRUT).vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-67065243029890672562010-07-13T13:46:17.553+01:002010-07-13T13:46:17.553+01:00mollymooly, you have alerted me to the fact that m...mollymooly, you have alerted me to the fact that my comment about the ichthyological ɒ might be misunderstood. I meant the unturned version of your "greek small letter turned alpha" would also be no bad thing. I personally am glad of all the visual help I can get.<br /><br />Even the Greeks write alpha like an ascenderless Italic d nowadays, and I have always written ɒ as an ascenderless Italic b, tho I have encountered some other funny ways of writing it. So neither ichthyological variant would require to be actually written like the Christian Ichthys. They would just as you say be more distinguishable in print.mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-42635212997835994452010-07-13T13:29:17.123+01:002010-07-13T13:29:17.123+01:00John, many thanks for raising the Comments fonts q...John, many thanks for raising the Comments fonts question on the Blogger discussion board. I'm sure John Maidment will be keeping an eye on the state of play, too. He seems to have worse problems with his blog fonts.mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-36380596913742119212010-07-13T12:43:08.693+01:002010-07-13T12:43:08.693+01:00I've rediscovered a link for ALPHABETUM.
I se...I've rediscovered a link for <a href="http://guindo.pntic.mec.es/~jmag0042/alphaeng.html" rel="nofollow">ALPHABETUM</a>.<br /><br />I see that Juan-José Marcos is officially a Classicist, but he has done an awful lot with Mediaeval Latin.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-81178064789237684622010-07-13T12:23:16.537+01:002010-07-13T12:23:16.537+01:00Here's a comparison of the two Lucida fonts.Here's a comparison of the <a href="http://web.me.com/davidcrosbie/Site/Blog/Entries/2010/7/13_Two_Lucida_fonts.html" rel="nofollow">two Lucida fonts</a>.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-35963946428720440112010-07-13T11:53:58.244+01:002010-07-13T11:53:58.244+01:00When I copy and paste into Word, I do indeed get t...When I copy and paste into <i><b>Word</b></i>, I do indeed get the English text entirely in <i>Lucida Grande</i>. The Bengali appears in a font called <i>Free Serif</i>, which for purposes of Bengali is identical with <i>Free Sans</i>. (I also have <i>Free Monotype</i>, but this lacks Indian characters.)<br /><br />I don't know where <i>Free</i> comes from, but I do know that I actively acquired my only other font with Bengali characters: <i>ALPHABETUM Unicode</i> devised by a Spanish mediaevalist with a <b>huge</b> repertoire of exotic characters. <br /><br />Substituting <i>ALPHABETUM</i> for <i>Free</i> is, I think, an improvement. I prefer the look of the letters. More importantly, the line spacing returns to normal. The <i>Free</i> fonts force the line of text down to allow for extra spacing at the top in characters such as ঈ or ী or ঁ.<br /><br />The line spacing problem caused by <i>Free</i> disappears when I substitute Jongseong's recommended <i>Lucida Sans Unicode</i> for <i>Lucida Grande</i>.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-70705795309337082442010-07-13T11:46:47.636+01:002010-07-13T11:46:47.636+01:00I have not discovered any way to specify a style s...I have not discovered any way to specify a style sheet for blog postings. What I did for today was to apply a "span" tag to the whole posting, namely <br /><span style="font-family: 'Segoe UI', 'Lucida Grande';">.<br />I have raised a query on the Blogger discussion board about how to specify a font for people's comments, but have had no reply so far.John Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.com