| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:01:02 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,681 |
In American English, Galveston apparently rhymes with "gun" and
"twenty-one". This seems quite weird from my perspective, and I
suppose from a British English perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhKZLhxFFUY
Galveston (Remastered 2001), by Glen Campbell
In American English, Galveston apparently rhymes with "gun" and
"twenty-one". This seems quite weird from my perspective, and I
suppose from a British English perspective.
(Peter T Daniels would certainly post an angry reaction to this, if he
were still here, ha ha.)
Here's how the phonemic analysis of AmEng that I was taught many years
ago treats this:
The vowel of the -ton syllable is [?]; it occurs only unstressed.
It's in complementary distribution with the phonetically similar [?] in
"gun" and "one", which occurs only stressed.
So the two are allophones of one phoneme.
(In the current pronunciation regime of OED, all three of these vowels
are written as <?>.*)
On 2025-03-21, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
In American English, Galveston apparently rhymes with "gun" and
"twenty-one". This seems quite weird from my perspective, and I
suppose from a British English perspective.
Well, it's /??|alv?st?n/, /-v?s-/. What did you expect?
Sat, 22 Mar 2025 09:46:53 +1300: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
scribeva:
Here's how the phonemic analysis of AmEng that I was taught many years
ago treats this:
The vowel of the -ton syllable is [?]; it occurs only unstressed.
Shwa. (My crappy old Agent program can see nor post IPA (although it
can post in UTF8). But I easily guessed what you posted, and confirmed
it by looking under the hood, in the data file. Linux IS fully Unicode enabled.)
It's in complementary distribution with the phonetically similar [?] in
Upside down v.
"gun" and "one", which occurs only stressed.
So the two are allophones of one phoneme.
(In the current pronunciation regime of OED, all three of these vowels
are written as <?>.*)
Yes, I understand thatrCOs the explanation. But I still think itrCOs a
weird rhyme, because of the stress difference,
(which is not mainstream and is not scientifically based, I know),
they are not the same phoneme. Being in complementary distribution
isnrCOt enough of a criterion for that. <h> and <ng> are also in complementary distribution, but clearly not the same phoneme, and they couldnrCOt ever rhyme.
I also consider the history of the language and the phonemes. I know
very well that according to any phonemic theory, and PTD, I shouldnrCOt,
but I do it anyway. The BUG vowel has an unrounded [o] realisation in Northern England, which shwa could never have. <but> (when stressed)
and <butt> and <put>, <look> and <luck> have the same vowel there. The
origin and sound of shwa in English, as in Galveston, is totally
different and unconnected.
This also reminds me of a discussion we had years ago, about Memphis
sounding like Memphus, in a song sung by Cher. Unthinkable in
South-Brit. The THIS and THUS vowels are always distinct there.
On 22/03/2025 7:59 p.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Sat, 22 Mar 2025 09:46:53 +1300: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
scribeva:
Here's how the phonemic analysis of AmEng that I was taught many years
ago treats this:
The vowel of the -ton syllable is [?]; it occurs only unstressed.
Shwa. (My crappy old Agent program can see nor post IPA (although it
can post in UTF8). But I easily guessed what you posted, and confirmed
it by looking under the hood, in the data file. Linux IS fully Unicode
enabled.)
It's in complementary distribution with the phonetically similar [?] in
Upside down v.
"gun" and "one", which occurs only stressed.
So the two are allophones of one phoneme.
(In the current pronunciation regime of OED, all three of these vowels
are written as <?>.*)
Yes, I understand thatrCOs the explanation. But I still think itrCOs a
weird rhyme, because of the stress difference,
I would say it's a weird pronunciation of "Galveston", with an extra
stress that shouldn't be there. But given that pronunciation, there's >nothing wrong with the rhyme.
and because in my view
(which is not mainstream and is not scientifically based, I know),
they are not the same phoneme. Being in complementary distribution
isnrCOt enough of a criterion for that. <h> and <ng> are also in
complementary distribution, but clearly not the same phoneme, and they
couldnrCOt ever rhyme.
But we know the answer to that one is that they are not phonetically >similar. Whereas [?] and [?] certainly are.
Personally, as a speaker of NAmEng, I consider the theory intuitively >plausible. It also accounts for why, for many speakers, the stressed
forms of words like "of" and "from" have [?].
I also consider the history of the language and the phonemes. I know
very well that according to any phonemic theory, and PTD, I shouldnrCOt,
but I do it anyway. The BUG vowel has an unrounded [o] realisation in
Northern England, which shwa could never have. <but> (when stressed)
and <butt> and <put>, <look> and <luck> have the same vowel there. The
origin and sound of shwa in English, as in Galveston, is totally
different and unconnected.
A phonological version of the Etymological Fallacy?
This also reminds me of a discussion we had years ago, about Memphis
sounding like Memphus, in a song sung by Cher. Unthinkable in
South-Brit. The THIS and THUS vowels are always distinct there.
They're quite distinct for me, too. What you mean is that in S-B (RP?)
the (various) unstressed vowels have sorted themselves into just two--
groups, where as for me (and I guess most NAmEng speakers, and others) >there's only one.
Yes, I understand thatrCOs the explanation. But I still think itrCOs a
weird rhyme, because of the stress difference, and because in my view
(which is not mainstream and is not scientifically based, I know),
they are not the same phoneme.
I also consider the history of the language and the phonemes. I know
very well that according to any phonemic theory, and PTD, I shouldnrCOt,
but I do it anyway. The BUG vowel has an unrounded [o] realisation in Northern England, which shwa could never have. <but> (when stressed)
and <butt> and <put>, <look> and <luck> have the same vowel there. The
origin and sound of shwa in English, as in Galveston, is totally
different and unconnected.
This also reminds me of a discussion we had years ago, about Memphis
sounding like Memphus, in a song sung by Cher. Unthinkable in
South-Brit. The THIS and THUS vowels are always distinct there.
On 2025-03-22, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
Yes, I understand thatrCOs the explanation. But I still think itrCOs a
weird rhyme, because of the stress difference, and because in my view
(which is not mainstream and is not scientifically based, I know),
they are not the same phoneme.
But many speakers do perceive them as the same phoneme. In fact,
the realization in the song is a test for this: What happens to
unstressed schwa when the speaker is forced to stress the vowel,
e.g. contrastive stress or, as in the song, secondary stress for
rhythmic reasons? It becomes the STRUT vowel.
Some American analyses use the same symbol for both stressed STRUT
and the unstressed schwa, e.g. Merriam-Webster.com.
J.C. Wells, in his _Longman Pronunciation Dictionary_ (3rd ed., 2008), >mentions "[upside down v] and [schwa] not distinguished in quality,
both being like RP [schwa]" in a list of "widespread but local
pronunciation characteristics from various parts of the British
Isles".
I also consider the history of the language and the phonemes. I know
very well that according to any phonemic theory, and PTD, I shouldnrCOt,
but I do it anyway. The BUG vowel has an unrounded [o] realisation in
Northern England, which shwa could never have. <but> (when stressed)
and <butt> and <put>, <look> and <luck> have the same vowel there. The
origin and sound of shwa in English, as in Galveston, is totally
different and unconnected.
The sh-sound in "fish" (from Germanic */sk/) and the one in "nation"
(from /sj/) have different origins and developed a millennium apart,
but they are the same phoneme.
You are talking about the so-called FOOT/STRUT split. In Southern
England English, Middle English short u shifted to the STRUT vowel.
However, this shift was incomplete, so words now have one or the
other, e.g. bush vs. butter. Some variants of English, notably in
Northern England, never participated in that shift and thus have
the same vowel in FOOT and STRUT. The exact quality of the vowel
varies.
The FOOT/STRUT split is universal in American/Canadian English.
The final schwa in Galveston is just a generic reduced vowel in
unstressed position. From Wikipedia it seems the name started out
as G|ilvez-Town, which then underwent the -town > -ton reduction
that is ubiquitous in English place names.
This is not a case where the etymology provides any additional
insights.
This also reminds me of a discussion we had years ago, about Memphis
sounding like Memphus, in a song sung by Cher. Unthinkable in
South-Brit. The THIS and THUS vowels are always distinct there.
Many AmE speakers do not distinguish unstressed schwa and an
unstressed KIT vowel. Actual realization can be in free variation
or positional allophony. In fact, this concerns the second syllable
of "Galveston". Merriam-Webster.com has replaced unstressed KIT
with the schwa throughout much of the dictionary.
This also reminds me of a discussion we had years ago, about Memphis
sounding like Memphus, in a song sung by Cher. Unthinkable in
South-Brit. The THIS and THUS vowels are always distinct there.
I can clearly hear a difference, though, both in AmEng and in BrEng.
The STRUT vowel is closer to the Dutch DAK vowel (though not the
same), and the English shwa (as in ago, akin, idea, era, and in
non-rhotic better etc.) is, well, identical with the Dutch shwa.
On 2025-03-22, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
This also reminds me of a discussion we had years ago, about Memphis
sounding like Memphus, in a song sung by Cher. Unthinkable in
South-Brit. The THIS and THUS vowels are always distinct there.
It's a bit more complicated, as Geoff Lindsey points out in
_English After RP_. On the one hand, Standard Southern British has
replaced KIT with schwa in many words, e.g. the second vowel in
"foreign"
and "arbitrary"
, and increasingly in the endings -et,--
-est, -less, -ness, -red, -ress. On the other hand, the distinction
itself is maintained and contrasts minimal pairs such as "teaches"
(KIT) and "teachers" (schwa), or "Lenin" and "Lennon".
[...] On the other hand, the distinction
itself is maintained and contrasts minimal pairs such as "teaches"
(KIT) and "teachers" (schwa), or "Lenin" and "Lennon".
Sat, 22 Mar 2025 16:09:34 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> scribeva:
On 2025-03-22, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
Yes, I understand thatrCOs the explanation. But I still think itrCOs a
weird rhyme, because of the stress difference, and because in my view
(which is not mainstream and is not scientifically based, I know),
they are not the same phoneme.
But many speakers do perceive them as the same phoneme. In fact,
the realization in the song is a test for this: What happens to
unstressed schwa when the speaker is forced to stress the vowel,
e.g. contrastive stress or, as in the song, secondary stress for
rhythmic reasons? It becomes the STRUT vowel.
Yes, agreed, I can believe. I only wonder what would happen if a
British singer were to sing this. I donrCOt know the answer.
On 2025-03-24 14:15:10 +0000, Christian Weisgerber said:
On 2025-03-22, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
This also reminds me of a discussion we had years ago, about Memphis
sounding like Memphus, in a song sung by Cher. Unthinkable in
South-Brit. The THIS and THUS vowels are always distinct there.
The city of Los Angeles is a case in point. Most British people
pronounce the last syllable like "lees" /l?jz/ (unless they've lived
there). Most Californians pronounce it as "l?s" -- the whole name as >/l?'s|and??l?s/.
There can also be variations between neighbouring states. Californians >usually pronounce the state of Oregon with "gone" as the last syllable,
but that annoys some Oregonians, who say "g?n" (confusingly, for
British speakers, writing it as "gun").
It's a bit more complicated, as Geoff Lindsey points out in
_English After RP_. On the one hand, Standard Southern British has
replaced KIT with schwa in many words, e.g. the second vowel in
"foreign"
yes
and "arbitrary"
no, not for me, unless by "second" you mean "third".
, and increasingly in the endings -et,
-est, -less, -ness, -red, -ress. On the other hand, the distinction
itself is maintained and contrasts minimal pairs such as "teaches"
(KIT) and "teachers" (schwa), or "Lenin" and "Lennon".
It's a bit more complicated, as Geoff Lindsey points out in
_English After RP_. On the one hand, Standard Southern British has
replaced KIT with schwa in many words, e.g. the second vowel in
"foreign"
yes
and "arbitrary"
no, not for me, unless by "second" you mean "third".
On 2025-03-24, Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's a bit more complicated, as Geoff Lindsey points out in
_English After RP_. On the one hand, Standard Southern British has
replaced KIT with schwa in many words, e.g. the second vowel in
"foreign"
yes
and "arbitrary"
no, not for me, unless by "second" you mean "third".
From the entry in the "mini dictionary" at the end of the book:
arbitrary
Newer: /-e+a-Eb+Otri-E/
Older: /-e+a-Eb+-tr+Or+-/
On 24/03/2025 5:19 a.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Sat, 22 Mar 2025 16:09:34 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
<naddy@mips.inka.de> scribeva:
On 2025-03-22, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
Yes, I understand thatrCOs the explanation. But I still think itrCOs a >>>> weird rhyme, because of the stress difference, and because in my view
(which is not mainstream and is not scientifically based, I know),
they are not the same phoneme.
But many speakers do perceive them as the same phoneme. In fact,
the realization in the song is a test for this: What happens to
unstressed schwa when the speaker is forced to stress the vowel,
e.g. contrastive stress or, as in the song, secondary stress for
rhythmic reasons? It becomes the STRUT vowel.
Yes, agreed, I can believe. I only wonder what would happen if a
British singer were to sing this. I donrCOt know the answer.
Probably they would imitate the pronunciation of Glen Campbell or
whoever they had heard singing it. More interesting would be to know
whether British songs go in for this kind of artificial accenting of unaccented syllables. (England has plenty of -ton place names; are any
of them in songs?)
I thought of another song where this happens: The Lily of the West,--
which (in the version I know, by Joan Baez) has a lengthened and
accented last syllable on "Lexington". Several versions of this are on YouTube. It seems that its UK cognates may not include a place name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_of_the_West
OK. At 81 (soon to be 82) I'm clearly in the Older category.
Having lived outside the anglophone world for nearly 40 I haven't been subject to the more modern influences, and still speak as I always did.
On 2025-03-26, Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
OK. At 81 (soon to be 82) I'm clearly in the Older category.
Having lived outside the anglophone world for nearly 40 I haven't been
subject to the more modern influences, and still speak as I always did.
So, as an old geezer, what is your personal opinion on Lindsey's
following assertion on the TRAP-BATH split?
Today greater diversity is allowed even among BBC newsreaders,
documentary narrators, etc. It's now common for such speakers to
have unbroadened TRAP in _bath_, _after_, _ask_, _answer_, _demand_,
_chant_, _sample_, etc. We might say that SSB now includes
un-broadened BATH words as an option.
This is convenient for learners aiming at a British accent, as
BATH-broadening can be tricky to learn. Not only is it hard to
explain why words did or did not broaden; there are also words
which have broadened more recently, such as _graph_. It's no
longer a high priority for learners to use the broadened forms.
Regardless, my personal observation from British media is that
beyond the very core vocabulary, there is considerable uncertainty
where to use broad A. I've heard _transplant_ with TRAP-TRAP,
TRAP-PALM, and PALM-PALM vowels.
Regardless, my personal observation from British media is that
beyond the very core vocabulary, there is considerable uncertainty
where to use broad A. I've heard _transplant_ with TRAP-TRAP,
TRAP-PALM, and PALM-PALM vowels.
Also, a beautiful example of stressed schwa by Natalie Dormer in
Games of Thrones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0iDuyyGYWo&t=16s
"Do you want to be a queen?" -- "No. I want to be THUH queen."
Mon, 24 Mar 2025 16:31:42 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> scribeva:
Also, a beautiful example of stressed schwa by Natalie Dormer in
Games of Thrones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0iDuyyGYWo&t=16s
"Do you want to be a queen?" -- "No. I want to be THUH queen."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVpFf2DmFSM
It's All Over Now, the Rolling Stones
"Because I used to love her, but it's all over now."
That "but" is rather long, almost stressed. Sounds like a shwa? It
strikes me as imitated American, perhaps a Texan accent or something
like that? But other traits are rather more like London English.
Of course the Stones are a British band, but in those days, 1966, it
was fashionable for some famous band to try to sound American. The
Beatles sometimes did that too.