tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post4232461391420953673..comments2024-03-17T09:14:13.950+00:00Comments on John Wells’s phonetic blog: more syllable-based allophonyJohn Wellshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-26886165591247301232020-06-13T10:50:00.708+01:002020-06-13T10:50:00.708+01:00Haloo pak^^
Kami dari SENTANAPOKER ingin menawark...Haloo pak^^<br /><br />Kami dari SENTANAPOKER ingin menawarkan pak^^<br /><br />Untuk saat ini kami menerima Deposit Melalui Pulsa ya pak.<br /><br />*untuk minimal deposit 10ribu<br />*untuk minimal Withdraw 25ribu<br /><br />*untuk deposit pulsa kami menerima provider<br />-XL<br />-Telkomsel<br /><br /><br />untuk bonus yang kami miliki kami memiliki<br />*bonus cashback 0,5%<br />*bunus refferal 20%<br />*bonus gebiar bulanan (N-max,samsung Note 10+,Iphone xr 64G,camera go pro 7hero,Apple airpods 2 ,dan freechips)<br /><br />Daftar Langsung Di:<br /><br />SENTANAPOKER<br /><br />Kontak Kami;<br /><br />WA : +855 9647 76509<br />Line : SentanaPoker<br />Wechat : SentanaPokerLivechat Sentanapoker<br /><br />Proses deposit dan withdraw tercepat bisa anda rasakan jika bermain di Sentanapoker. So… ? tunggu apa lagi ? Mari bergabung dengan kami. Pelayanan CS yang ramah dan Proffesional dan pastinya sangat aman juga bisa anda dapatkan di Sentanapoker.yessy haryantohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16503331838637071246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-29912373033668059932019-03-27T08:33:10.280+00:002019-03-27T08:33:10.280+00:00*Syllabifications*
of Sade, Masai, Monday, seque...*Syllabifications* <br /><br />of Sade, Masai, Monday, sequel<br /><br />Sade /'ʃɑː deɪ/<br />(Reason: Sade is considered bimorphemic:<br />Sa + de)<br /><br />Masai /'mɑː saɪ/<br />(Reason: Masai is considered bimorphemic:<br />Ma + sai. Further, /'mɑː/ is not pre-fortis clipped.)<br /><br />sequel /'si:kwəl/ is syllabified as /'si:k wəl/ for those who pronounce it with clipping in the accented syllable, realizing it as ['si:k^]+[^kwəl] in which <br />[k]= [k^ ^k] is ambisyllabic.<br />Alternatively, /'si:kwəl/ is syllabified as /'si: kwəl/ for those who pronounce the accented syllable without clipping, realizing <br />the word as <br />['si:]+ [kwəl]<br /><br /><br />Monday /'mʌndeɪ/ is syllabified as<br />/'mʌnd eɪ/ (P.516 of LPD)<br />when it is treated as if monomorphemic.<br />However, it is syllabified as /'mʌn deɪ/ ( P. 210 of LPD) when it is considered bimorphemic.<br />Both versions are pronounced ['mʌn]+[deɪ]Jacob Chuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08559476383817528974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-1436307962457270032012-10-10T22:35:06.842+01:002012-10-10T22:35:06.842+01:00JMR
The problem is that these rules work together...JMR<br /><br /><i>The problem is that these rules work together, you cannot pick one and not the other. Since the constraint isn't broken and the first syllable is more stressed, the consonant must be glued onto the first one.</i><br /><br />The unacceptable word is <i><b>'must'</b></i>. Rule 1 seems to <i><b>predict</b></i> that that syllabification will be <b>ˈʃɑ:d eɪ, ˈmɑ:s aɪ</b>. John's observation finds that the prediction is not confirmed. Assuming that John's observation is accurate — and it would take very strong evidence to question it — then in these two words the consonant <b>must not</b> be glued onto the first syllable.<br /><br />But so what? Neither is an English name. Why on earth should we expect them to follow the trend of English phonology?David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-53884759638055267602012-10-10T22:06:45.741+01:002012-10-10T22:06:45.741+01:00Your thoughts? Does payment rhyme with repayment? ...<i>Your thoughts? Does payment rhyme with repayment? What about Sade and Masai?</i><br /><br />For me, the words "payment" and "repayment" rhyme. However, I don't speak anything like RP, and John Wells would not write LPD with my sort of speech in mind. My own accent has some similarities with Scottish ones when it comes to syllabication (but not with pronunciation). For example, I would normally say "put it in there" as [pʊ tɪ tɪn ðɛ:]. There is an old joke about the Yorkshire pronunciation of "It isn't in the tin" becoming [tɪn tɪn tɪn]. <br /><br />Until a few seconds ago, I didn't know what/where/who Masai was, so I don't think that I should have an opinion on the pronunciation of this African language.<br /><br />I must admit that I find some of the syllabication in LPD strange. For example, the words that begin with the letters "idea" are baffling in their RP forms. However, the main test is whether it's accurate rather than whether it's strange or not. It's more difficult to tell now whether a dictionary is accurate, since not everyone gets to hear RP regularly (you only get a certain range of words used on Radio 3 and Classic FM). RP has become a flag without a pole in recent years.<br /><br />ɛd e:vja:dEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04081841460525341333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-10760716187615619662012-10-10T19:21:35.607+01:002012-10-10T19:21:35.607+01:00I guess once more this is a demonstration of what ...I guess once more this is a demonstration of what rhymes with what. But let it be said that I am not convinced about <i>payment</i> and <i>repayment</i>. And <i>claimant</i> as a word one of them should rhyme with.<br /><br />Probably, to Professor Wells, they rhyme with <i>shah day</i> and not <i>shard ay</i>.<br /><br />But how do I know when to pick which? As for buying those dictionaries, who knows, maybe they don't, but this dictionary is written as coherently as possible and even though Professor Wells said on one of those pages from UCL that English isn't (fully) logical and coherent and that we should deal with it, these rules have been written with a purpose in mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-36312140006563447182012-10-10T19:16:50.254+01:002012-10-10T19:16:50.254+01:00The problem is that these rules work together, you...The problem is that these rules work together, you cannot pick one and not the other. Since the constraint isn't broken and the first syllable is more stressed, the consonant must be glued onto the first one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-71523427944233810312012-10-10T18:11:16.410+01:002012-10-10T18:11:16.410+01:00JMR
check the article and its rules no. 1 and 4, ...JMR<br /><br /><i>check the article and its rules no. 1 and 4, which I thought guaranteed ˈmɑːs aɪ.</i><br /><br />I belatedly twigged that you were referring to another document. So I checked it as you suggest. I don't see how the rule 4 there makes any difference. It applies to <i><b>constraints</b></i>. There is no constraint on the syllable <b>mɑ:</b> — indeed it corresponds to a word, as does the syllable <b>ʃɑ:</b>. Similarly, there are no constraints on <b>mɑ:s</b> or <b>ʃɑ:d</b>. They serve as a particular pronunciation of <i>Mass</i> and a non-rhotic pronunciation of <i>shard</i>.<br /><br />There's no theoretical argument for or against <b>ˈmɑ: saɪ, ˈmɑ:s aɪ, ˈʃɑ: deɪ, ˈʃɑ:d eɪ</b>. We simply listen and find out what speakers choose.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-11345045392641130332012-10-10T17:37:26.561+01:002012-10-10T17:37:26.561+01:00Obviously, it doesn't exist. It should be stun...Obviously, it doesn't exist. It should be <b>stunsail</b> or <b>stuns'l</b>.<br /><br />Your thoughts? Does <i>payment</i> rhyme with <i>repayment</i>? What about <i>Sade</i> and <i>Masai</i>?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-35163927572406026732012-10-10T17:07:41.813+01:002012-10-10T17:07:41.813+01:00J.M.R.
What is this word "stansail" tha...J.M.R.<br /><br />What is this word "stansail" that you keep mentioning? It's neither listed in LPD nor the previously-mentioned <a href="http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/syllabif.htm" rel="nofollow">Syllabification and allophony</a>, and I've never heard of it before. When I've googled it, it is only coming up as a surname, yet you have consistently written it without a capital letter.<br /><br />ɛd e:vja:dEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04081841460525341333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-16978351653849972512012-10-09T01:59:35.482+01:002012-10-09T01:59:35.482+01:00No, it's a case of two pronunciations disprovi...<i>No, it's a case of two pronunciations disproving some putative rules of gluing and phonotactics.</i><br /><br />That was perhaps a little unfair. The examples don't so much disprove the rules as indicate that they are not applicable in the discipline of descriptive phonetics. They may well be of considerable value in theoretical phonology.<br /><br />Nobody buys a dictionary to be told the theoretical abstract forms that underlie the observed concrete forms. This is especially true of a reference work used mainly by foreigners who wish to know what in practice they might to copy, and who are generally antipathetic to theory of any kind.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-92160086712956088712012-10-08T18:59:53.213+01:002012-10-08T18:59:53.213+01:00JMR
David, if the whole thing was nonsense, than ...JMR<br /><br /><i>David, if the whole thing was nonsense, than codifying it in a published article wouldn't make sense. </i><br /><br />It isn't a codification, it's a record, an observation. A fact.<br /><br />Calling it 'nonsense' is pointless. It is what it is.<br /><br /><i> It's the case of two nouns breaking the rules of gluing and phonotactics. </i><br /><br />No, it's a case of two pronunciations disproving some putative rules of gluing and phonotactics.<br /><br />The fact that they can be thus disproved shows that they were well-constructed rules.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-60144434020159450032012-10-08T18:16:10.912+01:002012-10-08T18:16:10.912+01:00I can only make sense of stansail that it is that ...I can only make sense of <i>stansail</i> that it is that way because the last syllable is thought of as a morpheme, a shortened version of <i>sail</i> so it doesn't trump the glue & don't break the phonotactic rule code.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-50303099327097303192012-10-08T18:12:51.659+01:002012-10-08T18:12:51.659+01:00David, if the whole thing was nonsense, than codif...David, if the whole thing was nonsense, than codifying it in a published article wouldn't make sense. It's the case of two nouns breaking the rules of gluing and phonotactics. Likewise, you are entitled to produce an explanation of irregularity.<br /><br />Furthermore, I have the right to alter the facts, but everything has a price. Your last line is spurious and mendacious, very unlike anything you have written so far.<br /><br />This board needs explanations, not accusations, ethics and manners policing and attacking other people for no reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-37609781376096726402012-10-08T17:41:09.275+01:002012-10-08T17:41:09.275+01:00JMR
How can payment be ˈpeɪm ənt and repayment ri...JMR<br /><br /><i>How can payment be ˈpeɪm ənt and repayment ri ˈpeɪ mənt? That makes absolutely no sense. Neither does ˈstʌn səl for stansail.</i><br /><br />Facts are facts. They don't have to make sense.<br /><br />of course, you're perfectly entitled to prove that the facts do make sense. But you have absolutely no entitlement to alter the facts to produce a spurious — I would say mendacious — rationality.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-42080863522474506232012-10-08T17:35:45.120+01:002012-10-08T17:35:45.120+01:00JMR
What should one say about payment and repayme...JMR<br /><br /><i>What should one say about payment and repayment? Look those entries up. Impenetrable.</i><br /><br />This a <b>dictionary</b>, not a rule-book. It records what, in John's expert judgement, the majority of speakers say. <br /><br />What it boils down to is whether the penultimate syllable is <i><b>open</b></i> or <i><b>closed</b></i>. Open or closed <b>phonetically</b>, not phonologically. <br /><br />So how do we tell? Well, for me the easiest test is <b>vowel length</b> — again, phonetic, not phonological. Other things being equal, vowels are shortest before a voiceless consonant and longest in an open syllable. The vowel in <i>time</i> is not as short as the vowel in <i>type</i> but it is shorter than the vowel in <i>tie</i>. So, the test here is this:<br /><br />Is the <b>eɪ</b> vowel of <i>payment</i> perceptibly shorter in duration than the <b>eɪ</b> in <i>repayment</i>? <br /><br />John's judgement is that it is, hence his comparison with <i>claimant</i> which nobody would think to pronounce with an initial open syllable.<br /><br />John's judgement of his own speech is backed by his study of the speech of a great many other people. Have you any grounds for doubting that he found the same distinction in the data?<br /><br />The fact that it seems a bit odd that <i>payment</i> and <i>repayment</i> should be differently syllabified is of no real importance. It isn't even the sort of anomaly that leads to interesting analysis and conclusions. One might discover why and in what circumstances a particular speaker makes the distinction, but I can't see how you might diagnose the habits of a whole speech community.<br /><br />Irregularity is irregular. No amount of theorising can impose regularity when the facts deny it.<br /><br />It may well be the case that your speech has imposed a regularity that the majority of us do not share.<br />David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-83294115243044747282012-10-08T15:16:10.914+01:002012-10-08T15:16:10.914+01:00Let me add that flɒ ˈdʒɪst ɪk and the e ending the...Let me add that <b>flɒ ˈdʒɪst ɪk</b> and the <b>e</b> ending the syllable words are explained in the rules.<br /><br />If I was rude, and I believe some here might think so, I would be ready to apologize, but let it be said that I have utmost respect for Prof. Wells.<br /><br />Eventually, I hope I hope I will be able to explain <i>Masai</i> and <i>Sade</i> to myself (check <a href="http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/syllabif.htm" rel="nofollow">the article</a> and its rules no. 1 and 4, which I thought guaranteed <b>ˈmɑːs aɪ</b>. Only etymology and rule no. 3 could result in a different syllabification, yet I believe that would make no sense because the etymology of those words would be to obscure.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-34823683020059637942012-10-08T15:10:07.603+01:002012-10-08T15:10:07.603+01:00The point is, Ellen, that his system isn't pho...The point is, Ellen, that his system isn't phonetic. It aspires to divide words into syllables – although it is arguable whether those can be call syllables and, cleverly, they aren't separated by full stops in the dictionary – so that it is easy to predict the allophone in question. It's as good as it can be, and obviously its creator put great effort into it, however, it is also deeply contradictory. It doesn't want to break phonotactic rules, yet syllables often end in <b>e</b> and there are plenty of words like <b>flɒ ˈdʒɪst ɪk</b>, for example.<br /><br />I just wanted to get to the bottom of it and never ask a question about it again, but it isn't easy and as you can see, many of the users of the dictionary, some with background in phonetics, have absolutely no idea what it's about.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-61145034733488412572012-10-06T01:18:24.529+01:002012-10-06T01:18:24.529+01:00Speaking of Machynlleth, this evening I heard a Ge...Speaking of Machynlleth, this evening I heard a German reporter attempt to pronounce it. Apparently aiming for /maˈxʌnθlɛθ/, she succeeded in pronouncing it [maˈxanslɛs].Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-26687452512704004242012-10-05T19:34:36.817+01:002012-10-05T19:34:36.817+01:00I would transcribe (my pronunciation of) Grantches...I would transcribe (my pronunciation of) <i>Grantchester</i> as /ˈgranttʃɛstər/: note /ttʃ/, stop followed by affricate. It does not rhyme with <i>Manchester</i>, which has the same vowels. This is also how I hear the (Canadian) <a href="http://www.forvo.com/word/grantchester/" rel="nofollow">Forvo pronunciation</a>.<br /><br />I've always found John's treatment of /tr/ and /dr/ a bit alien, I presume simply because my accent differs. (My intuition is that most cases of them have become /tʃr/ and /dʒr/, but this certainly does not apply to "matter of fact" or "under a cloud", however much compressed.) <br /><br />dʒɔnəθən dʒɔːdn<br />JHJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03257258313943639485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-60666132166947203062012-10-05T19:03:28.572+01:002012-10-05T19:03:28.572+01:00J. M. R., If mean that you think payment and repay...J. M. R., If mean that you think payment and repayment should have the same syllabication as repayment because they are (you think) pronounced the same, I disagree, because they aren't pronounced the same. I won't pretend to understand John Well's choice of how to divide words into syllables, but it's clear enough to me that it's not odd that they might be broken up in to syllables differently.Ellen Kozisekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16856539181411664278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-70462657828176633142012-10-05T18:17:29.244+01:002012-10-05T18:17:29.244+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04081841460525341333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-75953331754040768492012-10-05T17:14:37.167+01:002012-10-05T17:14:37.167+01:00@ Jean-Marc:
The actual words were "Beyond t...@ Jean-Marc: <br />The actual words were "Beyond telling him to get a life (an idiom he might not be familiar with), what can I do but hold my hands up and CONGRATULATE HIM ON HIS DILIGENCE AND ON THE ACCURACY OF HIS OBSERVATIONS?"<br />I assure you I would take that as a great compliment!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762196203762970377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-29279079882446905902012-10-05T17:02:30.934+01:002012-10-05T17:02:30.934+01:00I do reply, very assiduously and very politely. My...I do reply, very assiduously and very politely. My postings on Monday and today explain why I have no very satisfactory answer to give Jacob, with whom I have been conducting an extensive private discussion.<br /><br />I think "payment" rhymes with "claimant". Don't you? Compare "pay Ma(donna)". I think /s-tr/ in "district" is similar to /s-tr/ in "this trick".John Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-5993356419244555752012-10-05T16:51:48.990+01:002012-10-05T16:51:48.990+01:00Let us pause for a second. Perhaps Ed will find th...Let us pause for a second. Perhaps Ed will find this hard, but since you can say to that Chinese person, or wherever he is from, to "get a life", I believe I can state that I am not an idiot. I have obviously read that article, but it is full of wholes and things you find that need not to be said, yet they do. One flagrant example is the line about <i>extra</i> which is a <i>non sequitur</i>. <i>District</i> is equally unclear. Otherwise, if it were clear, other people could respond.<br /><br />How can <i>payment</i> be <b>ˈpeɪm ənt</b> and <i>repayment</i> <b>ri ˈpeɪ mənt</b>? That makes absolutely no sense. Neither does <b>ˈstʌn səl</b> for <i>stansail</i>.<br /><br />That article, as well as the <i>Accents of English</i>, need to be completely rewritten. Because one doesn't know which rule and when trumps that other rule. Complete anomy.<br /><br />Let it be said that I respect your work and will now probably enter this blog with deep fear that a sad news will strike me, but I just do not get it why does <i>Ask Professor Wells</i> exist if you either do not reply or say to people <i>Get a life!</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-53382302754600014462012-10-05T14:40:55.078+01:002012-10-05T14:40:55.078+01:00"No one"??? It so happens I have just a ..."No one"??? It so happens I have just a few moments ago heard a reporter on Sky News TV pronounce it with a perfectly good <b>ɬ</b>. He was not the first. (Everybody is getting practice now.) You must not make unsubstantiated sweeping statements.<br /><br />For the rest, please read my syllabification article, available on-line.John Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.com