Zompist Bboard Again

Does anyone else's English dialects have light affrication of stressed /t/ before GOOSE, /w/, or NURSE? I ask here because I have noticed that in my own idiolect and the dialect here in general stressed /t/ becomes a labialized, palatalized alveolar [tsʲʷʰ] before GOOSE and /w/, and an alveolopalatal [tɕʰ] before NURSE. Not that the affrication is lighter than that from explicitly affricate phonemes ─ stressed /tʃ/ is also realized as [tɕʰ] before NURSE, but does not merge with /t/ in the same position because the affrication is much stronger in the former case. Also note that /ts/ as in tsunami is realized as dentialveolar rather than alveolar so does not merge.

My /t/ is heavily affricated in all positions.

Do I get this right, or am I misunderstanding something, if I assume that in British English, the word "nincompoop" is basically what the vast majority of British people who aren't anything like traditional USAnian stereotypes of British people have traditionally called those British men who actually are like traditional USAnian stereotypes of British people?

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Jan 01, 2026 1:45 pm Do I get this right, or am I misunderstanding something, if I assume that in British English, the word "nincompoop" is basically what the vast majority of British people who aren't anything like traditional USAnian stereotypes of British people have traditionally called those British men who actually are like traditional USAnian stereotypes of British people?

I would need to know more about US stereotypes of British people to make a confident statement, but I don't think so. A nincompoop is an ideot who acts in a particular way I'm too tired¹ to give a coherent description of, and I don't think the ideocy is there in the stereotypes.

¹ If it hasn't been rendered unnecessary by other people's replies, remind me to give a better definition with usage examples if I haven't in about a week

Lērisama wrote: ↑Thu Jan 01, 2026 4:09 pm
I would need to know more about US stereotypes of British people to make a confident statement, but I don't think so. A nincompoop is an ideot who acts in a particular way I'm too tired¹ to give a coherent description of, and I don't think the ideocy is there in the stereotypes.

This quote on the matter is from a World War 2 era magazine column by George Orwell*, so it might be a bit outdated, but to some extent, some of the stereotypes still work that way:

In addition there is a systematic guying of what are supposed to be British habits and manners on the stage and in comic strips and cheap magazines. The typical Englishman is represented as a chinless ass with a title, a monocle and a habit of saying “Haw, haw”. This legend is believed in by relatively responsible Americans, for example by the veteran novelist Theodore Dreiser, who remarks in a public speech that “the British are horse-riding aristocratic snobs”. (Forty-six million horse-riding snobs!)

Would "a chinless ass with a title, a monocle and a habit of saying 'Haw, haw'" be a good illustration of the term "nincompoop"?

*The second one of a sequence of two columns that are quite interesting: they took on the whole "Overpaid, Oversexed, Over here" issue at exactly the time when it was current.

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Jan 02, 2026 7:20 am Would "a chinless ass with a title, a monocle and a habit of saying 'Haw, haw'" be a good illustration of the term "nincompoop"?

Yes definitely. The first person who sprung to mind when I read the word was Jacob Rees Mogg, who is pretty much the modern equivalent of that.

Thank you! Sounds as if my initial impression wasn't that far off the mark, then.

And now I know what 'nincompoop' actually means.

Reading the Orwell column I quoted here during the recent discussion, I now wonder:

If you're British and you're writing for a British publication mostly read by British readers, should you write the name of the US naval base in Honolulu as "Pearl Harbor" or "Pearl Harbour"?

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 9:00 am Reading the Orwell column I quoted here during the recent discussion, I now wonder:

If you're British and you're writing for a British publication mostly read by British readers, should you write the name of the US naval base in Honolulu as "Pearl Harbor" or "Pearl Harbour"?

I’d write the latter without even thinking of it.

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 9:00 am Reading the Orwell column I quoted here during the recent discussion, I now wonder:

If you're British and you're writing for a British publication mostly read by British readers, should you write the name of the US naval base in Honolulu as "Pearl Harbor" or "Pearl Harbour"?

“Pearl Harbour,” because I'd never even consider “Harbor.” If my text was being proof-read by someone with a very good eye, then I have no idea.

Edit: What Bradrn said

Thank you!

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 9:14 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 9:00 am Reading the Orwell column I quoted here during the recent discussion, I now wonder:

If you're British and you're writing for a British publication mostly read by British readers, should you write the name of the US naval base in Honolulu as "Pearl Harbor" or "Pearl Harbour"?

I’d write the latter without even thinking of it.

But what then would be your view if a British person wrote about the "Australian Labour Party"?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 12:10 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 9:14 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 9:00 am Reading the Orwell column I quoted here during the recent discussion, I now wonder:

If you're British and you're writing for a British publication mostly read by British readers, should you write the name of the US naval base in Honolulu as "Pearl Harbor" or "Pearl Harbour"?

I’d write the latter without even thinking of it.

But what then would be your view if a British person wrote about the "Australian Labour Party"?

That’s a mistake, because Labor specifically chose that spelling, and the Australian media distinguish between ‘Labor’ and ‘labour’.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 12:12 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 12:10 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 9:14 am

I’d write the latter without even thinking of it.

But what then would be your view if a British person wrote about the "Australian Labour Party"?

That’s a mistake, because Labor specifically chose that spelling, and the Australian media distinguish between ‘Labor’ and ‘labour’.

Yes, and I would also say that, as an American I write "Labour" when I speak of the British Labour Party even though it's 'labor' in American English.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 12:12 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 12:10 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 9:14 am

I’d write the latter without even thinking of it.

But what then would be your view if a British person wrote about the "Australian Labour Party"?

That’s a mistake, because Labor specifically chose that spelling, and the Australian media distinguish between ‘Labor’ and ‘labour’.

While I'd just as unthinkingly would also write “Labour.” I would change this one if I noticed it, because it's a proper name distinct from the word itself, but I doubt I'd even consider it.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 1:52 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 12:12 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 12:10 pm

But what then would be your view if a British person wrote about the "Australian Labour Party"?

That’s a mistake, because Labor specifically chose that spelling, and the Australian media distinguish between ‘Labor’ and ‘labour’.

While I'd just as unthinkingly would also write “Labour.” I would change this one if I noticed it, because it's a proper name distinct from the word itself, but I doubt I'd even consider it.

Yes, I think it’s reasonable to do that unthinkingly. But the difference is that that would be a mistake in a way which ‘Pearl Harbour’ wouldn’t. (And neither would ‘Sydney Harbor’, for that matter.)

To be completely honest "Pearl Harbour" feels really weird to me, because it's a proper name, and not just a harbor of pearls. Kind of like if I spoke about the British "Labor Party".

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 1:55 pm

Lērisama wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 1:52 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 12:12 pm

That’s a mistake, because Labor specifically chose that spelling, and the Australian media distinguish between ‘Labor’ and ‘labour’.

While I'd just as unthinkingly would also write “Labour.” I would change this one if I noticed it, because it's a proper name distinct from the word itself, but I doubt I'd even consider it.

Yes, I think it’s reasonable to do that unthinkingly. But the difference is that that would be a mistake in a way which ‘Pearl Harbour’ wouldn’t. (And neither would ‘Sydney Harbor’, for that matter.)

I might write "Sydney Harbor" without thinking, but I'd regard "Sydney Harbour" as correct.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 2:30 pmTo be completely honest "Pearl Harbour" feels really weird to me, because it's a proper name, and not just a harbor of pearls. Kind of like if I spoke about the British "Labor Party".

This. It's a proper name, and should be spelt properly :). You could write about the Pearl Harbor harbour though...


JAL