The "How Do You Pronounce X" Thread

[zompist]

I believe this is my usual pronunciation, though I sometimes insert an extra [i] before the [j]. I don’t see what’s so ‘amazing’ about it — it’s a direct reflection of Japanese Tōkyō

It really isn't; listen to Suzuka's singing, or Wiktionary. Unless you also pronounce "acute" as "ack-yoot", or "mañana" as "man-yanna"?

[bradrn]

Unless you also pronounce "acute" as "ack-yoot"

How else would it be pronounced?

or "mañana" as "man-yanna"?

If I ever said this word I would probably try to say it with [ɲ], but that is the pronunciation I would expect from other people, given that English has no phonemic /ɲ/.

[anteallach]

Unless you also pronounce "acute" as "ack-yoot"

How else would it be pronounced?

or "mañana" as "man-yanna"?

If I ever said this word I would probably try to say it with [ɲ], but that is the pronunciation I would expect from other people, given that English has no phonemic /ɲ/.

I think he's talking about the tendency for previous consonants to assimilate to the /j/.

For Tokyo (in English; I don't speak any Japanese) I have (up to predictable vowel variation) the pronunciation shown as the RP one in Wiktionary (the three syllable /ˈtəʊ.ki.əʊ/). I don't perceive any /j/ between the second and third vowels, though I realise that doesn't mean that others wouldn't perceive a [j].

For /kj/ in English (as in acute) the /k/ is definitely fronted, though I feel it isn't actually as far forward as the /j/, which when combined with the aspiration of the /k/ is close to turning into [ç] here: [ək̟çyʉt] might not be a terrible transcription. (However, phonologically that's still /əˈkjuːt/, so I'm not quite sure how it's different from "ack-yoot".) Likewise /n/ is palatalised and retracted before /j/, but doesn't actually become properly palatal. (Its POA is similar to that of my /tʃ/ and /dʒ/.)

It's clear from the Japanese Wiktionary recording that the /k/ is strongly fronted, to the extent that if I were coming up with my own anglicisation based on it I might even want to use /tʃ/, my English lacking a proper palatal stop.

[Travis B.]

I have /ˈtoʊˌkjoʊ/ [ˈtʰø̞ˌcʰj̥ø̞(ː)] but to me /ˈtoʊkiˌoʊ/ [ˈtʰø̞ciːˌo̞(ː)] is a valid pronunciation (but it feels a bit dated).

A for mañana I have /mənˈjɑnə/ [mə̃ːnˈjãːnə(ː)].

[zompist]

Unless you also pronounce "acute" as "ack-yoot"

How else would it be pronounced?

"a-kyoot", of course.

[Travis B.]

Unless you also pronounce "acute" as "ack-yoot"

How else would it be pronounced?

"a-kyoot", of course.

I have never heard anyone pronounce acute as "ack-yoot", but rather always as "a-kyoot" (for me /əˈkjut/ [əˈcʰj̥yʔ(t)]).

[bradrn]

[ək̟çyʉt] might not be a terrible transcription

I agree, though my /k/ may be even more fronted here.

Unless you also pronounce "acute" as "ack-yoot"

How else would it be pronounced?

"a-kyoot", of course.

I have never heard anyone pronounce acute as "ack-yoot", but rather always as "a-kyoot" (for me /əˈkjut/ [əˈcʰj̥yʔ(t)]).

Well, I don’t understand what the difference between ‘ack-yoot’ and ‘a-kyoot’ is meant to be — aside from syllabification, which I don’t believe is phonemic.

[Lērisama]

Well, I don’t understand what the difference between ‘ack-yoot’ and ‘a-kyoot’ is meant to be — aside from syllabification, which I don’t believe is phonemic.

How would you analyse the difference between (what's for me) [Vtɹ̠ʷV] and [Vt͡ɹ̠̞ʷV] or [Vʔɹ̠ʷV] and [Vt͡ɹ̠̞ʷʰV], I'd call it /d.ɹ/ against /d.ɹ/ and /t.ɹ/ against /tɹ/. For example ‘headrest’, ‘hairdresser’¹, ‘hat rail’ and ‘the trail’² respectively.

¹ From which I've seen a backformed ‘to hairdress’ in the wild, but not the past that would make a minimal pair
² Again, the first sequence is quite rare because it only occurs in compounds, so I couldn't find a good pairing. I have to just promise that ‘hat rail’ is a single phonological word for me.

[Travis B.]

Well, I don’t understand what the difference between ‘ack-yoot’ and ‘a-kyoot’ is meant to be — aside from syllabification, which I don’t believe is phonemic.

How would you analyse the difference between (what's for me) [Vtɹ̠ʷV] and [Vt͡ɹ̠̞ʷV] or [Vʔɹ̠ʷV] and [Vt͡ɹ̠̞ʷʰV], I'd call it /d.ɹ/ against /d.ɹ/ and /t.ɹ/ against /tɹ/. For example ‘headrest’, ‘hairdresser’¹, ‘hat rail’ and ‘the trail’² respectively.

¹ From which I've seen a backformed ‘to hairdress’ in the wild, but not the past that would make a minimal pair
² Again, the first sequence is quite rare because it only occurs in compounds, so I couldn't find a good pairing. I have to just promise that ‘hat rail’ is a single phonological word for me.

I would consider in my own idiolect /d.r/ versus /dʒr/ to be an example of an incomplete diachronic sound change, because I have hea/d.r/est but be/dʒr/oom.

[anteallach]

Well, I don’t understand what the difference between ‘ack-yoot’ and ‘a-kyoot’ is meant to be — aside from syllabification, which I don’t believe is phonemic.

How would you analyse the difference between (what's for me) [Vtɹ̠ʷV] and [Vt͡ɹ̠̞ʷV] or [Vʔɹ̠ʷV] and [Vt͡ɹ̠̞ʷʰV], I'd call it /d.ɹ/ against /d.ɹ/ and /t.ɹ/ against /tɹ/. For example ‘headrest’, ‘hairdresser’¹, ‘hat rail’ and ‘the trail’² respectively.

¹ From which I've seen a backformed ‘to hairdress’ in the wild, but not the past that would make a minimal pair
² Again, the first sequence is quite rare because it only occurs in compounds, so I couldn't find a good pairing. I have to just promise that ‘hat rail’ is a single phonological word for me.

I think the argument would be that those distinctions are derived from the morpheme boundaries, similarly to John Wells's example of shellfish vs. selfish.

[zompist]

I have never heard anyone pronounce acute as "ack-yoot", but rather always as "a-kyoot" (for me /əˈkjut/ [əˈcʰj̥yʔ(t)]).

Well, I don’t understand what the difference between ‘ack-yoot’ and ‘a-kyoot’ is meant to be — aside from syllabification, which I don’t believe is phonemic.

I can't hear or analyze your speech. But this statement is quite wrong about my dialect, and I think American English in general. And syllabification is one of the distinctive things about English— many languages greatly prefer syllables to end in a vowel. Syllabification is essential to understanding English vowel reduction.

The usual caveats apply: distinctions can break down in rapid speech; minor distinctions are ignored; everybody talks a little different. But these things apply to other phonetic distinctions too and we still do phonology.

But also, don't sit there insisting that distinctions other people make don't exist; use your mouth and ears and learn. Start with "I'm back. You're not?" I hope you agree that a final k sounds different if the [j] starts after a pause, or the next day. Get the pause smaller: "I'm back, you're not?" And smaller: "I'll back you in the election." Compare with one syllable words: "She's cute." Then get the coarticulation going, [kʲ] as in Tōkyō or Russian кенгуру́. You should be able to hear and produce the continuum between these extremes [k j > kj > kʲ], whatever exactly happens in your own dialect.

[Travis B.]

My variety of English must be odd in that it does not normally prefer syllable codas, which is apparent from that coda plosives not preceded by a fricative are (pre)glottalized in it yet this does not occur in many cases.

Take topsy [ˈtʰa.ps̟i(ː)], Nazi [ˈna.ts̟i(ː)], boxy [ˈpa.ksʲi(ː)] and contrast with tops [tʰaʔps̟], knots [naʔts̟], box [paʔksʲ]. Especially note pizza [ˈpiʔt̚.ts̟ə(ː)].