Zompist Bboard Again

Another one: how about the name of the letter <J>? It's /ʤe/ for me, but /ʤai/ for many people in Scotland, and /ʒi/ in French (which is confusing as <G> is /ʒe/).

alice wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2026 2:28 pm Another one: how about the name of the letter <J>? It's /ʤe/ for me, but /ʤai/ for many people in Scotland, and /ʒi/ in French (which is confusing as <G> is /ʒe/).

I have what you have for all intents and purposes ─ for ⟨j⟩ I have /dʒeɪ/, or if you want a dialect-specific analysis, /dʒe/, realized [tʃe̞(ː)] ─ and for ⟨g⟩ I have /dʒi/ [tʃi(ː)].

alice wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2026 2:28 pm Another one: how about the name of the letter <J>? It's /ʤe/ for me, but /ʤai/ for many people in Scotland, and /ʒi/ in French (which is confusing as <G> is /ʒe/).

At least French and the specifically(?) Scots form 'j' the same way, though the Great Vowel Shift causes surface level confusion.

Richard W wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2026 4:21 pm

alice wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2026 2:28 pm Another one: how about the name of the letter <J>? It's /ʤe/ for me, but /ʤai/ for many people in Scotland, and /ʒi/ in French (which is confusing as <G> is /ʒe/).

At least French and the specifically(?) Scots form 'j' the same way, though the Great Vowel Shift causes surface level confusion.

It is always interesting how Scots has much influence from French and Latin just like English does but its French and Latin loans and influences do not match those in English.

among us

I realized I pronounce it [əmʌŋg‿ʌs] rather than [əmʌŋ ʌs]. PRobably because of the amogus meme. In no other context does the [g] arise for me

chelsea wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 2:07 am among us

I realized I pronounce it [əmʌŋg‿ʌs] rather than [əmʌŋ ʌs]. PRobably because of the amogus meme. In no other context does the [g] arise for me

That would sound to me like you're making up something out of the word 'humungous'.

For me among us /əˈmʌŋˌʌs/ [ə̃ːˈmʌ̃ːŋˌʌs̟] and humungous /ˌhjuˈmʌŋɡəs/ [ˌçjỹːˈmʌ̃ːŋɡɘs̟] do not rhyme, even ignoring the [ɡ].

chelsea wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 2:07 am among us

I realized I pronounce it [əmʌŋg‿ʌs] rather than [əmʌŋ ʌs]. PRobably because of the amogus meme. In no other context does the [g] arise for me

The [ɡ] occurs for me in this phrase, but I suspect I have free variation between /ŋ/ and /ŋɡ/ word finally. Weirdly, I nowadays have /sɪŋɪŋ/ or /sɪŋiŋɡ/ for singing. Also, I would more usually say amongst us then among us, so there may be some carry over from the former. For the record, I'm pretty sure I say the phrase in question [əmɒŋˈɡɐz].

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 12:03 pm For me among us /əˈmʌŋˌʌs/ [ə̃ːˈmʌ̃ːŋˌʌs̟] and humungous /ˌhjuˈmʌŋɡəs/ [ˌçjỹːˈmʌ̃ːŋɡɘs̟] do not rhyme, even ignoring the [ɡ].

Do you not have a weak form of 'us'?

Imralu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 5:48 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 12:03 pm For me among us /əˈmʌŋˌʌs/ [ə̃ːˈmʌ̃ːŋˌʌs̟] and humungous /ˌhjuˈmʌŋɡəs/ [ˌçjỹːˈmʌ̃ːŋɡɘs̟] do not rhyme, even ignoring the [ɡ].

Do you not have a weak form of 'us'?

I seem to always have /ʌ/ [ʌ] and never */ə/ "[ɘ] in us.

One thing I have noticed is that I have bringing /ˈbrɪŋəŋ/ [ˈpʁˤɨ̃ːŋɘ̃(ː)ŋ] but longer /ˈlɔŋɡər/ [ˈʟ̞ɒ̃ːŋɡʁ̩ˤ(ː)] and longest /ˈlɔŋɡəst/ [ˈʟ̞ɒ̃ːŋɡɘsʲtʲ]~[ˈʟ̞ɒ̃ːŋɡɘs̟] and to my knowledge this is Standard English (Wiktionary reports [ɡ] in longer and longest, and I cannot recall ever hearing anyone say bringing with [ɡ]). But why? It doesn't make diachronic sense ─ either bringing, longer, and longest all ought to have medial [ŋɡ], or none of them should.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 11:12 pm One thing I have noticed is that I have bringing /ˈbrɪŋəŋ/ [ˈpʁˤɨ̃ːŋɘ̃(ː)ŋ] but longer /ˈlɔŋɡər/ [ˈʟ̞ɒ̃ːŋɡʁ̩ˤ(ː)] and longest /ˈlɔŋɡəst/ [ˈʟ̞ɒ̃ːŋɡɨsʲtʲ]~[ˈʟ̞ɒ̃ːŋɡɨs̟] and to my knowledge this is Standard English (Wiktionary reports [ɡ] in longer and longest, and I cannot recall ever hearing anyone say bringing with [ɡ]). But why? It doesn't make diachronic sense ─ either bringing, longer, and longest all ought to have medial [ŋɡ], or none of them should.

I wonder if it's something about the comparative and superlative of adjectives being able to be irregular, but there isn't a single irregular -ing form in the whole language, not even of be. So even though the spelling is regular, long and strong have an irregularity in the comparative and superlative. When I use wrong in the comparative (i.e. when saying something is morally wronger than something else), I don't add a /g/ and it would feel weird to do so. I don't know of any other word ending in ng where a /g/ spontaneously appears when a vowel-initial suffix is added. Banger, minger, clanger.

I suppose the parallel is that /mb/ at the end of a word was simplified to just /m/ (which, in this case, didn't result in the creation of an additional phoneme because /m/ already existed), so plumbing and plumber, climbing and climber didn't get the /b/ back because these forms are just straight from the stem, but crumble, coming from crumb with a now no longer productive suffix, has preserved the /b/, probably because it's been regarded as an entirely different word since before the /b/ became silent. (Only as far back as 1951, when Catcher in the Rye was written, crummy was still spelt crumby, but it's slangy (with /ŋ/ not /ŋg/) register probably encouraged its respelling.)

Imralu wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 3:49 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 11:12 pm One thing I have noticed is that I have bringing /ˈbrɪŋəŋ/ [ˈpʁˤɨ̃ːŋɘ̃(ː)ŋ] but longer /ˈlɔŋɡər/ [ˈʟ̞ɒ̃ːŋɡʁ̩ˤ(ː)] and longest /ˈlɔŋɡəst/ [ˈʟ̞ɒ̃ːŋɡɨsʲtʲ]~[ˈʟ̞ɒ̃ːŋɡɨs̟] and to my knowledge this is Standard English (Wiktionary reports [ɡ] in longer and longest, and I cannot recall ever hearing anyone say bringing with [ɡ]). But why? It doesn't make diachronic sense ─ either bringing, longer, and longest all ought to have medial [ŋɡ], or none of them should.

I wonder if it's something about the comparative and superlative of adjectives being able to be irregular, but there isn't a single irregular -ing form in the whole language, not even of be. So even though the spelling is regular, long and strong have an irregularity in the comparative and superlative. When I use wrong in the comparative (i.e. when saying something is morally wronger than something else), I don't add a /g/ and it would feel weird to do so. I don't know of any other word ending in ng where a /g/ spontaneously appears when a vowel-initial suffix is added. Banger, minger, clanger.

It also occurs with strong~stronger and young~younger. That said, Huddleston & Pullum claim that these are the only three adjectives ending with /ŋ/ which regularly inflect for grade, and for that reason — and because no other word class undergoes this alternation — they analyse it as irregular.

Imralu wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 3:49 am I suppose the parallel is that /mb/ at the end of a word was simplified to just /m/ (which, in this case, didn't result in the creation of an additional phoneme because /m/ already existed), so plumbing and plumber, climbing and climber didn't get the /b/ back because these forms are just straight from the stem, but crumble, coming from crumb with a now no longer productive suffix, has preserved the /b/, probably because it's been regarded as an entirely different word since before the /b/ became silent. (Only as far back as 1951, when Catcher in the Rye was written, crummy was still spelt crumby, but it's slangy (with /ŋ/ not /ŋg/) register probably encouraged its respelling.)

A complication is that the b in /mbl/ is euphonic, so the difference between /ml/ and /mbl/ is easily overlooked. For example, one of the early forms of pummel is <i>pumble</i>. And the <b> in crumb is parasitic - it was lacking in the earliest forms of <i>crumble</i>.

Imralu wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 3:49 am I wonder if it's something about the comparative and superlative of adjectives being able to be irregular, but there isn't a single irregular -ing form in the whole language, not even of be.

There are monosyllabic forms, though. Just saying.

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 7:07 am There are monosyllabic forms, though. Just saying.

There's also variable syncopation - centring can be 3 syllables or 2 syllables. And there are orthographic issues with adding '-ing'.

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 7:15 am

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 7:07 am There are monosyllabic forms, though. Just saying.

There's also variable syncopation - centring can be 3 syllables or 2 syllables. And there are orthographic issues with adding '-ing'.

Tis true -- while centering is always trisyllabic for me, there is considerable free variation in words with -le when -ing is attached, e.g. sampling can be either trisyllabic or disyllabic for me. Yet at the same time there are words that do not undego such free variation for me, e.g. belittling is always quadrisyllabic and never trisyllabic for me.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 5:58 am It also occurs with strong~stronger and young~younger.

Oh yeah, I forgot young, but I did mention strong.

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 7:07 am

Imralu wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 3:49 am I wonder if it's something about the comparative and superlative of adjectives being able to be irregular, but there isn't a single irregular -ing form in the whole language, not even of be.

There are monosyllabic forms, though. Just saying.

Such as? Are there people going around saying bing? I know there are people who confuse it orthographically with been, but there are also people who miss entire words when they write that they absolutely say when they speak.

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 7:15 am

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 7:07 am There are monosyllabic forms, though. Just saying.

There's also variable syncopation - centring can be 3 syllables or 2 syllables.

Sure, but that seems like an automatic process, not something stored lexically. Are there any words ending in /ə(r)/ that can't drop the schwa? Same for /əl/ and /ən/ etc.

Imralu wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 4:16 pm Are there people going around saying bing? I know there are people who confuse it orthographically with been, but there are also people who miss entire words when they write that they absolutely say when they speak.

If you're using respelling, you mean beeng, and there are people who normally use an alveolar nasal rather than velar nasal. I don't know whether the two groups intersect. The vowel of the desinence and the last element of the diphthong may coalesce, effectively dropping the the vowel of the desinence. It's the sort of thing for which there may be idiosyncratic idiolectal preferences - it's the sort of thing that doesn't normally show up in writing, so there's little pressure to conform to a specific usage.

Imralu wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 4:16 pm

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 7:15 am There's also variable syncopation - centring can be 3 syllables or 2 syllables.

Sure, but that seems like an automatic process, not something stored lexically. Are there any words ending in /ə(r)/ that can't drop the schwa? Same for /əl/ and /ən/ etc.

See Travis B's remarks above on belittling - always 4 syllables for him, usually 3 for me. He says he usually has free variation for what you write as /əl/. For some of these words in some people's mouths, there may be a 3-way choice - have schwa, vocalic consonant, or just a consonantal consonant. I have not studied what selection rules may be at work, let alone looked for lexical choices. For centring, there is even a choice of syncopated form - does the /t/ 'assimilate' to the following /r/ or not? For me, wandering can have all 3 forms - /wɒndərɪŋ/, /wɒndrɪŋ/ and /wɒndʒrɪŋ/ with the latter preferred, while for thundering /ndʒr/ is the least preferred. I also wonder how often /wɒndʒɪŋ/ turns up in other people's speech. In my speech, the sequence /dr/ is a good indication that a vowel has been lost by syncopation.

I often reduce being, but I don't shorten it. Rather, it comes out as /ˈbiəŋ/ [piːːŋ] or /ˈbiən/ [piːːn]. For the sake of comparison, bean is /bin/ [pĩ(ː)n].