Zompist Bboard Again

jal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:54 am

jcb wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2026 11:04 pmYes, the aspiration on /p/ is missing, but it's still unvoiced, and /b/ is still voiced.

It was my understanding that the voice/unvoiced distinction in English is minor compared to aspirated/unaspirated, and the distinction gets lost in many environments. But maybe I'm overgeneralizing some special cases like intervocalic flapping in GenAm.


JAL

jcb wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 4:23 pm

jal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:54 am

jcb wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2026 11:04 pmYes, the aspiration on /p/ is missing, but it's still unvoiced, and /b/ is still voiced.

It was my understanding that the voice/unvoiced distinction in English is minor compared to aspirated/unaspirated, and the distinction gets lost in many environments. But maybe I'm overgeneralizing some special cases like intervocalic flapping in GenAm.


JAL

I've heard this description before, but I don't hear it in my dialect at least.

In fact, around here, when people want to do a mock German (or should I say, Cherman) accent, they devoice their voiced plosives, making the distinction between /p/ and /b/ (etc) one purely of aspiration, or simply merging them.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 6:32 pm

jcb wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 4:23 pm

jal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:54 am
It was my understanding that the voice/unvoiced distinction in English is minor compared to aspirated/unaspirated, and the distinction gets lost in many environments. But maybe I'm overgeneralizing some special cases like intervocalic flapping in GenAm.


JAL

I've heard this description before, but I don't hear it in my dialect at least.

In fact, around here, when people want to do a mock German (or should I say, Cherman) accent, they devoice their voiced plosives, making the distinction between /p/ and /b/ (etc) one purely of aspiration, or simply merging them.

Here a mock German accent involves things like replacing /w/ with [v] or (paradoxically) /v/ with [w]

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 7:11 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 6:32 pm

jcb wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 4:23 pm
I've heard this description before, but I don't hear it in my dialect at least.

In fact, around here, when people want to do a mock German (or should I say, Cherman) accent, they devoice their voiced plosives, making the distinction between /p/ and /b/ (etc) one purely of aspiration, or simply merging them.

Here a mock German accent involves things like replacing /w/ with [v] or (paradoxically) /v/ with [w]

Reminds me of an old comic skit I saw recently, set in a haunted house, in which the stereotypical ‘gypsy fortune-teller’ compares the bite of a ‘verevolf’ to that of a ‘wampire’…

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 6:32 pm

jcb wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 4:23 pm

jal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:54 am
It was my understanding that the voice/unvoiced distinction in English is minor compared to aspirated/unaspirated, and the distinction gets lost in many environments. But maybe I'm overgeneralizing some special cases like intervocalic flapping in GenAm.


JAL

I've heard this description before, but I don't hear it in my dialect at least.

In fact, around here, when people want to do a mock German (or should I say, Cherman) accent, they devoice their voiced plosives, making the distinction between /p/ and /b/ (etc) one purely of aspiration, or simply merging them.

Here a mock German accent involves things like replacing /w/ with [v] or (paradoxically) /v/ with [w], replacing lenis plosive phonemes with fortis plosive phonemes, replacing initial /s/ with [z], stopping /θ ð/ in all positions, not flapping intervocalic /t d n nt/, shoving an English vowel system into a German vowel system, and so on. However, voiceless lenis plosives are a normal part of the English here.

Of course, one could make the argue that the English here has elements of non-Anglic substratum influence, with its NCVS (which I have seen theorized as originating in substrata), its dorsal rhotics (when not after a coronal), its uniformly voiceless /dʒ/, and its (inconsistent and conditional) stopping of /θ ð/ (particularly initially). However, much of this is just hypothesis.

jcb wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 1:36 am Interestingly, I do have stopping of /T D/ initially, but I definitely don't have NCVS.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 1:00 pm

jcb wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 1:36 am Interestingly, I do have stopping of /T D/ initially, but I definitely don't have NCVS.

This is common in lower registers of many English varieties; e.g. it is common in urban dialects in the Great Lakes region.

jcb wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 1:27 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 1:00 pm

jcb wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 1:36 am Interestingly, I do have stopping of /T D/ initially, but I definitely don't have NCVS.

This is common in lower registers of many English varieties; e.g. it is common in urban dialects in the Great Lakes region.

BTW, just to clarify, when I say /T D/ stopping, I mean *dental* stops. They're still distinct from the alveolar stops /t d/.

Also, I don't live in the Great Lakes region, but do live somewhat near it.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 1:00 pm

jcb wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 1:36 am Interestingly, I do have stopping of /T D/ initially, but I definitely don't have NCVS.

This is common in lower registers of many English varieties; e.g. it is common in urban dialects in the Great Lakes region.

alice wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 3:43 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 1:00 pm

jcb wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 1:36 am Interestingly, I do have stopping of /T D/ initially, but I definitely don't have NCVS.

This is common in lower registers of many English varieties; e.g. it is common in urban dialects in the Great Lakes region.

It's also common in southern Irish accents, of course.

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2026 11:32 am Why is it "forget", but "forgettable" or "unforgettable"? Seems like English rules for when to cut out double letters or not and when to double single letters or not while you're forming compounds are even weirder than the English tense system.

The final consonant of a root is doubled in the same contexts as when adding the suffix -ed. In general, this means doubling occurs when the preceding vowel is short and stressed (as in winnable) but not when it is long (as in obtainable) or unstressed (as in openable). In British English, a final L is typically doubled after a short vowel regardless of whether the vowel is stressed or unstressed (as in compellable, modellable). In American English, final L typically follows the same rules as other consonants (as in compellable, modelable). These are the general trends, but there is some variation within British and American English between these two methods of doubling final L.

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2026 11:54 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2026 11:32 am Why is it "forget", but "forgettable" or "unforgettable"? Seems like English rules for when to cut out double letters or not and when to double single letters or not while you're forming compounds are even weirder than the English tense system.

Wiktionary says the following about -able:

The final consonant of a root is doubled in the same contexts as when adding the suffix -ed. In general, this means doubling occurs when the preceding vowel is short and stressed (as in winnable) but not when it is long (as in obtainable) or unstressed (as in openable). In British English, a final L is typically doubled after a short vowel regardless of whether the vowel is stressed or unstressed (as in compellable, modellable). In American English, final L typically follows the same rules as other consonants (as in compellable, modelable). These are the general trends, but there is some variation within British and American English between these two methods of doubling final L.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2026 12:00 pm I should also note that this is regard with traditional 'short' and 'long' vowels in English, and not with regard to the kind of English vowel length we talk about around here. For instance, in 'debatable' the stressed vowel is traditionally 'long' even though in NAE it is phonetically short.

Richard W wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2026 1:27 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2026 12:00 pm I should also note that this is regard with traditional 'short' and 'long' vowels in English, and not with regard to the kind of English vowel length we talk about around here. For instance, in 'debatable' the stressed vowel is traditionally 'long' even though in NAE it is phonetically short.

Who's 'we'?

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2026 8:24 am How would you describe the thing that fat in a frying pan does when it gets into contact with Teflon? "Bounces off"? "Gets deflected"?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2026 8:30 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2026 8:24 am How would you describe the thing that fat in a frying pan does when it gets into contact with Teflon? "Bounces off"? "Gets deflected"?

Honestly, I don't have a special phrasing for this ─ I would just say that it "doesn't stick".