Discussion:
Back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
Add Reply
Dingbat
2022-01-06 03:43:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?

What comes to mind is Balling-Bawling-Bowling.
I have [A.:], [O:] & [o:] in these.

FWIW, I perceive my Mary-Merry distinction as length, not quality:
[E:] vs [E].

Is there any study of splitting (opposite of merging),
not necessarily phonemic splitting but subphonemic
splitting into allophones?
I pronounce WHOLLY HOLY as [ho:lI hoUli].
Such a minimal pair suggests that I have a phonemic
distinction /o/ vs /oU/ in my English.
Stefan Ram
2022-01-06 04:02:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger
cot-caught. Then, there's the father-bother merger.

Other back phenomenons are the goat-thought merger,
the thought-foot merger, the thought-goose merger,
and the thought split.
Peter Moylan
2022-01-06 05:39:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But I'm aware
that many in North America merge all three, while many others merge only
the first two.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Snidely
2022-01-06 07:38:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But I'm aware
that many in North America merge all three, while many others merge only
the first two.
What's "caht"?

/dps
--
"First thing in the morning, before I have coffee, I read the obits, If
I'm not in it, I'll have breakfast." -- Carl Reiner, to CBS News in
2015.
Peter Moylan
2022-01-06 09:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously? That was
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger
cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But I'm
aware that many in North America merge all three, while many
others merge only the first two.
What's "caht"?
I almost wrote "cart", but at least one person in this group objects to
any reference to the BrE "ar" vowel.

For everyone else, "caht" is how people pronounce "cot" if they have the
father-bother merger. For me, and also for BrE speakers, it is an A
vowel. Father-bother mergerers perceive it as an O vowel.

In my speech, the sequence cart-cot-caught displays increasing rounding
as the vowel moves from the back to the front of the mouth in three steps.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
CDB
2022-01-06 16:06:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Snidely
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger
cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But I'm
aware that many in North America merge all three, while many
others merge only the first two.
What's "caht"?
I almost wrote "cart", but at least one person in this group objects
to any reference to the BrE "ar" vowel.
For everyone else, "caht" is how people pronounce "cot" if they have
the father-bother merger. For me, and also for BrE speakers, it is an
A vowel. Father-bother mergerers perceive it as an O vowel.
You are very polite. I have started using non-rhotic "r" to specify
vowel quality for that very reason. The opportunities have not been
many, but I did manage Manuel's "I know narthing".
Post by Peter Moylan
In my speech, the sequence cart-cot-caught displays increasing
rounding as the vowel moves from the back to the front of the mouth
in three steps.
Ken Blake
2022-01-06 17:06:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously? That was
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger
cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But I'm
aware that many in North America merge all three, while many
others merge only the first two.
What's "caht"?
I almost wrote "cart", but at least one person in this group objects to
any reference to the BrE "ar" vowel.
For everyone else, "caht" is how people pronounce "cot" if they have the
father-bother merger. For me, and also for BrE speakers, it is an A
vowel. Father-bother mergerers perceive it as an O vowel.
In my speech, the sequence cart-cot-caught displays increasing rounding
as the vowel moves from the back to the front of the mouth in three steps.
If you meant the word spelled "cart," then all three vowels are
different to me.
Jerry Friedman
2022-01-06 17:09:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously? That was
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger
cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But I'm
aware that many in North America merge all three, while many
others merge only the first two.
What's "caht"?
I almost wrote "cart", but at least one person in this group objects to
any reference to the BrE "ar" vowel.
For everyone else, "caht" is how people pronounce "cot" if they have the
father-bother merger. For me, and also for BrE speakers, it is an A
vowel. Father-bother mergerers perceive it as an O vowel.
In my speech, the sequence cart-cot-caught displays increasing rounding
as the vowel moves from the back to the front of the mouth in three steps.
If you meant the word spelled "cart," then all three vowels are
different to me.
Do you rhyme "father" and "bother"?
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2022-01-07 00:56:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously? That was
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger
cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But
I'm aware that many in North America merge all three, while
many others merge only the first two.
What's "caht"?
I almost wrote "cart", but at least one person in this group
objects to any reference to the BrE "ar" vowel.
For everyone else, "caht" is how people pronounce "cot" if they
have the father-bother merger. For me, and also for BrE speakers,
it is an A vowel. Father-bother mergerers perceive it as an O
vowel.
In my speech, the sequence cart-cot-caught displays increasing
rounding as the vowel moves from the back to the front of the mouth
in three steps.
If you meant the word spelled "cart," then all three vowels are
different to me.
It's hard to tell with a rhotic speaker, because the syllabic R becomes
the second element of what is effectively a diphthong.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Ken Blake
2022-01-06 17:25:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously? That was
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger
cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But I'm
aware that many in North America merge all three, while many
others merge only the first two.
What's "caht"?
I almost wrote "cart", but at least one person in this group objects to
any reference to the BrE "ar" vowel.
For everyone else, "caht" is how people pronounce "cot" if they have the
father-bother merger. For me, and also for BrE speakers, it is an A
vowel. Father-bother mergerers perceive it as an O vowel.
...
We don't necessarily. I was taught to call it both "short O" and "broad A".
I think of it as an A vowel, though in my accent it's probably spelled with
<o> more often than with <a>.
For many if not all British dialects and for all (I think) Australian dialects,
you could use "balm", "bomb",
I pronounce bother the same way, with the same vowel I use in "father"
and "bother."
and the anglicized pronunciation of the
surname "Baum".
No comment on that, since I don't know what the anglicized pronunciation
is. My vowel for "Baum" is the same one I use in "cow."


But in the U.S., many people use [O] for "balm" even
though they use [A] in "father", "taco", etc. (those transcriptions are broad),
and many people in these degenerate times have an /l/ in "balm".
Ken Blake
2022-01-06 17:33:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously? That was
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger
cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But I'm
aware that many in North America merge all three, while many
others merge only the first two.
What's "caht"?
I almost wrote "cart", but at least one person in this group objects to
any reference to the BrE "ar" vowel.
For everyone else, "caht" is how people pronounce "cot" if they have the
father-bother merger. For me, and also for BrE speakers, it is an A
vowel. Father-bother mergerers perceive it as an O vowel.
...
We don't necessarily. I was taught to call it both "short O" and "broad A".
I think of it as an A vowel, though in my accent it's probably spelled with
<o> more often than with <a>.
For many if not all British dialects and for all (I think) Australian dialects,
you could use "balm", "bomb",
I pronounce bother the same way, with the same vowel I use in "father"
and "bother."
Ugh! That was supposed to be "I pronounce both the same way..."
Jerry Friedman
2022-01-06 18:34:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously? That was
Post by Peter Moylan
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But I'm
aware that many in North America merge all three, while many
others merge only the first two.
What's "caht"?
I almost wrote "cart", but at least one person in this group objects to
any reference to the BrE "ar" vowel.
For everyone else, "caht" is how people pronounce "cot" if they have the
father-bother merger. For me, and also for BrE speakers, it is an A
vowel. Father-bother mergerers perceive it as an O vowel.
...
We don't necessarily. I was taught to call it both "short O" and "broad A".
I think of it as an A vowel, though in my accent it's probably spelled with
<o> more often than with <a>.
For many if not all British dialects and for all (I think) Australian dialects,
you could use "balm", "bomb",
I pronounce bother the same way, with the same vowel I use in "father"
and "bother."
Me too (assuming you meant "both" instead of the first "bother"), but I
grew up pronouncing "balm" with the THOUGHT vowel.
Post by Ken Blake
and the anglicized pronunciation of the
surname "Baum".
No comment on that, since I don't know what the anglicized pronunciation
is. My vowel for "Baum" is the same one I use in "cow."
...

Some people with that name pronounce it with "au" as it "taut".
--
Jerry Friedman
Ken Blake
2022-01-06 18:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously? That was
Post by Peter Moylan
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But I'm
aware that many in North America merge all three, while many
others merge only the first two.
What's "caht"?
I almost wrote "cart", but at least one person in this group objects to
any reference to the BrE "ar" vowel.
For everyone else, "caht" is how people pronounce "cot" if they have the
father-bother merger. For me, and also for BrE speakers, it is an A
vowel. Father-bother mergerers perceive it as an O vowel.
...
We don't necessarily. I was taught to call it both "short O" and "broad A".
I think of it as an A vowel, though in my accent it's probably spelled with
<o> more often than with <a>.
For many if not all British dialects and for all (I think) Australian dialects,
you could use "balm", "bomb",
I pronounce bother the same way, with the same vowel I use in "father"
and "bother."
Me too (assuming you meant "both" instead of the first "bother"), but I
grew up pronouncing "balm" with the THOUGHT vowel.
Post by Ken Blake
and the anglicized pronunciation of the
surname "Baum".
No comment on that, since I don't know what the anglicized pronunciation
is. My vowel for "Baum" is the same one I use in "cow."
...
Some people with that name pronounce it with "au" as it "taut".
OK. I don't think I've ever heard it that way.
Peter Moylan
2022-01-07 01:01:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 4:54:07 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously? That was
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger
cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But
I'm aware that many in North America merge all three, while
many others merge only the first two.
What's "caht"?
I almost wrote "cart", but at least one person in this group
objects to any reference to the BrE "ar" vowel.
But you were apparently referring to the word "cart." We understand
that you non-rhotics write [a] that way.
No, we write [A] that way. It's a back vowel.

[...]
What does AusE do with /ow/ as in "dome"? Do you have that
pinched-up [əʊ] of RP, or a nice healthy [ow], or has your trek
around the vowel triangle moved it somewhere else?
Our "dome" vowel is very different from RP. I would write it as [aU].

Interesting point: AusE does not have the [a] vowel except in words,
like pasta, of foreign origin. But we do have [a] in diphthongs.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Dingbat
2022-01-08 01:14:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
I almost wrote "cart", but at least one person in this group
objects to any reference to the BrE "ar" vowel.
But you were apparently referring to the word "cart." We understand
that you non-rhotics write [a] that way.
That's peculiar to Bostonian non-rhotic.
In Boston, PARK has [a] whereas PALM has [A].
[a] is the most open front vowel on the IPA chart.
Post by Peter Moylan
No, we write [A] that way. It's a back vowel.
What does AusE do with /ow/ as in "dome"? Do you have that
pinched-up [əʊ] of RP, or a nice healthy [ow], or has your trek
around the vowel triangle moved it somewhere else?
Our "dome" vowel is very different from RP. I would write it as [aU].
[aU] like in "dOWn under"?
Peter Moylan
2022-01-07 01:07:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:54:07 AM UTC-7, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously? That was
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger
cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But
I'm aware that many in North America merge all three, while
many others merge only the first two.
What's "caht"?
I almost wrote "cart", but at least one person in this group
objects to any reference to the BrE "ar" vowel.
For everyone else, "caht" is how people pronounce "cot" if they
have the father-bother merger. For me, and also for BrE speakers,
it is an A vowel. Father-bother mergerers perceive it as an O
vowel.
...
We don't necessarily. I was taught to call it both "short O" and
"broad A". I think of it as an A vowel, though in my accent it's
probably spelled with <o> more often than with <a>.
For many if not all British dialects and for all (I think) Australian
dialects, you could use "balm", "bomb", and the anglicized
pronunciation of the surname "Baum". [...]
Enough of us pronounce that with the "cow" vowel, because of surnames
that end in -baum. Try "Braun" instead. I pronounce that like "brown",
but all the advertising I've heard from that company says "brawn".
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Jerry Friedman
2022-01-07 03:26:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:54:07 AM UTC-7, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously? That was
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger
cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But
I'm aware that many in North America merge all three, while
many others merge only the first two.
What's "caht"?
I almost wrote "cart", but at least one person in this group
objects to any reference to the BrE "ar" vowel.
For everyone else, "caht" is how people pronounce "cot" if they
have the father-bother merger. For me, and also for BrE speakers,
it is an A vowel. Father-bother mergerers perceive it as an O
vowel.
...
We don't necessarily. I was taught to call it both "short O" and
"broad A". I think of it as an A vowel, though in my accent it's
probably spelled with <o> more often than with <a>.
For many if not all British dialects and for all (I think) Australian
dialects, you could use "balm", "bomb", and the anglicized
pronunciation of the surname "Baum". [...]
Enough of us pronounce that with the "cow" vowel, because of surnames
that end in -baum.
That's the non-anglicized pronunciation.

By the way, some Americans with surnames that end in -baum use the
anglicized pronunciation.
Post by Peter Moylan
Try "Braun" instead. I pronounce that like "brown",
but all the advertising I've heard from that company says "brawn".
I was looking for a minimal triplet.
--
Jerry Friedman
Lewis
2022-01-07 18:34:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:54:07 AM UTC-7, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously? That was
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger
cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But
I'm aware that many in North America merge all three, while
many others merge only the first two.
What's "caht"?
I almost wrote "cart", but at least one person in this group
objects to any reference to the BrE "ar" vowel.
For everyone else, "caht" is how people pronounce "cot" if they
have the father-bother merger. For me, and also for BrE speakers,
it is an A vowel. Father-bother mergerers perceive it as an O
vowel.
...
We don't necessarily. I was taught to call it both "short O" and
"broad A". I think of it as an A vowel, though in my accent it's
probably spelled with <o> more often than with <a>.
For many if not all British dialects and for all (I think) Australian
dialects, you could use "balm", "bomb", and the anglicized
pronunciation of the surname "Baum". [...]
Enough of us pronounce that with the "cow" vowel, because of surnames
that end in -baum. Try "Braun" instead. I pronounce that like "brown",
So do I.
Post by Peter Moylan
but all the advertising I've heard from that company says "brawn".
I don't think I've ever heard any advertising for it.
I say Brawn.
--
'I'm not a thief, madam. But if I were, I would be the kind that
steals fire from the gods.' 'We've already got fire.' 'There must
be an upgrade by now.'
Kerr-Mudd, John
2022-01-06 11:09:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 23:38:39 -0800
Post by Snidely
Post by Peter Moylan
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But I'm aware
that many in North America merge all three, while many others merge only
the first two.
What's "caht"?
The cat caht a mahse?
IGMC



(I'll Get My Coaht)
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
Ken Blake
2022-01-06 17:08:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 23:38:39 -0800
Post by Snidely
Post by Peter Moylan
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But I'm aware
that many in North America merge all three, while many others merge only
the first two.
What's "caht"?
The cat caht a mahse?
IGMC
(I'll Get My Coaht)
If it's cold when you play, you should wear it on the tennis caught.
Ken Blake
2022-01-06 17:05:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
The most famous back merger might be the low back merger cot-caught.
For me that's a three-way distinction: caht-cot-caught. But I'm aware
that many in North America merge all three, while many others merge only
the first two.
I'm not sure what you mean by "caht," but I don't merge "cot" and "caught."


If by "caht," you mean "cat," all three are different to me.
David Kleinecke
2022-01-06 04:45:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
What comes to mind is Balling-Bawling-Bowling.
I have [A.:], [O:] & [o:] in these.
[E:] vs [E].
Is there any study of splitting (opposite of merging),
not necessarily phonemic splitting but subphonemic
splitting into allophones?
I pronounce WHOLLY HOLY as [ho:lI hoUli].
Such a minimal pair suggests that I have a phonemic
distinction /o/ vs /oU/ in my English.
Phonology nit: I think your distinction, if real, is between /o:/ and /oU/
which raises a question about the status of /:/. Is it a phoneme? If not -
what is it? If it is a phoneme are there any minimal pairs with /h/? Or
with the glotttal stop?
Jerry Friedman
2022-01-06 05:28:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
What comes to mind is Balling-Bawling-Bowling.
I have [A.:], [O:] & [o:] in these.
I'd never heard of anyone who pronounces "balling" differently from
"bawling".

I'm not sure what vowels are on your list. I'd suggest PALM, LOT,
and THOUGHT as often merged. Then there's NORTH and FORCE
(or "horse" and "hoarse"). "Bowling" has the GOAT vowel, but I don't
know of any dialect where that's merged with another vowel, unless
you count FORCE as having that vowel.

I believe that "mull" is getting merged with "moll" or "maul" or both
for a lot of Americans.
Post by Dingbat
[E:] vs [E].
Is there any study of splitting (opposite of merging),
not necessarily phonemic splitting but subphonemic
splitting into allophones?
I pronounce WHOLLY HOLY as [ho:lI hoUli].
Such a minimal pair suggests that I have a phonemic
distinction /o/ vs /oU/ in my English.
I think I pronounce those words the same, or maybe with gemination
of the /l/ for "wholly", especially or only in "marked" pronunciation.
--
Jerry Friedman
Dingbat
2022-01-06 09:59:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
Thanks to Peter Moylan for reminding me about Cot-Caught.
That is indeed standard but less satisfactory than my example.
Cot and Caught have a length distinction too in UK English.
The examples I gave have only a quality distinction, a 3-way
distinction for me and at least a 2-way distinction for all
Anglophones, AFAIK.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
What comes to mind is Balling-Bawling-Bowling.
I have [A.:], [O:] & [o:] in these.
I'd never heard of anyone who pronounces "balling" differently from
"bawling".
I'm not sure what vowels are on your list.
My Bawling has the same vowel as in Born/Borne/Bourne.
The other two are probably similar to your pronunciation.

That reminds me: I gave an American Bollinger's pronunciation of
his name as Bawlinger. By aw, I meant the Born vowel without the
rhoticicism. It sounded to me like either Bawlinger or Borlinger.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I'd suggest PALM, LOT,
and THOUGHT as often merged. Then there's NORTH and FORCE
(or "horse" and "hoarse"). "Bowling" has the GOAT vowel, but I don't
know of any dialect where that's merged with another vowel, unless
you count FORCE as having that vowel.
I have different vowels in Bowling and Goat: [o:] vs [oU].
Post by Jerry Friedman
I believe that "mull" is getting merged with "moll" or "maul" or both
for a lot of Americans.
Post by Dingbat
[E:] vs [E].
Is there any study of splitting (opposite of merging),
not necessarily phonemic splitting but subphonemic
splitting into allophones?
I pronounce WHOLLY HOLY as [ho:lI hoUli].
Such a minimal pair suggests that I have a phonemic
distinction /o/ vs /oU/ in my English.
I think I pronounce those words the same, or maybe with gemination
of the /l/ for "wholly", especially or only in "marked" pronunciation.
Like wholely?
Jerry Friedman
2022-01-06 15:37:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
Thanks to Peter Moylan for reminding me about Cot-Caught.
That is indeed standard but less satisfactory than my example.
Cot and Caught have a length distinction too in UK English.
The examples I gave have only a quality distinction, a 3-way
distinction for me and at least a 2-way distinction for all
Anglophones, AFAIK.
You've got a problem there, because as far as I know as an American,
most or all British dialects have no long version of the LOT vowel or
short version of the THOUGHT vowel.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
What comes to mind is Balling-Bawling-Bowling.
I have [A.:], [O:] & [o:] in these.
I'd never heard of anyone who pronounces "balling" differently from
"bawling".
Come to think of it, I seem to remember that Ron Draney said or implied
here that he does. But his pronunciation developed in a very unusual
way: he wanted to sound like professionals in the media, not anyone he
knew.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Jerry Friedman
I'm not sure what vowels are on your list.
My Bawling has the same vowel as in Born/Borne/Bourne.
The other two are probably similar to your pronunciation.
That reminds me: I gave an American Bollinger's pronunciation of
his name as Bawlinger. By aw, I meant the Born vowel without the
rhoticicism. It sounded to me like either Bawlinger or Borlinger.
Was it the same as his THOUGHT vowels? Or his GOAT vowels
before /l/?

Even some Americans with the cot-caught merger use something a lot
like your "aw". Maybe that's particularly common in the Pacific
Northwest?
Post by Dingbat
Post by Jerry Friedman
I'd suggest PALM, LOT,
and THOUGHT as often merged. Then there's NORTH and FORCE
(or "horse" and "hoarse"). "Bowling" has the GOAT vowel, but I don't
know of any dialect where that's merged with another vowel, unless
you count FORCE as having that vowel.
I have different vowels in Bowling and Goat: [o:] vs [oU].
...

But are those different allophones of the same phoneme?

Your mention below of a wholly-holy split suggests they aren't, but is
that just your pronunciation or a feature of an English dialect? And
if the latter, should it be analyzed as a phonemic split or a subphonemic
difference related to a difference in syllable boundaries or morphemes
between the two words?
Post by Dingbat
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
[E:] vs [E].
Is there any study of splitting (opposite of merging),
not necessarily phonemic splitting but subphonemic
splitting into allophones?
I pronounce WHOLLY HOLY as [ho:lI hoUli].
Such a minimal pair suggests that I have a phonemic
distinction /o/ vs /oU/ in my English.
I think I pronounce those words the same, or maybe with gemination
of the /l/ for "wholly", especially or only in "marked" pronunciation.
Like wholely?
Yes, not that I'd spell it that way.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2022-01-07 00:48:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 10:58:06 AM UTC+5:30, Jerry
On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 8:43:25 PM UTC-7, Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
Thanks to Peter Moylan for reminding me about Cot-Caught. That is
indeed standard but less satisfactory than my example. Cot and
Caught have a length distinction too in UK English. The examples I
gave have only a quality distinction, a 3-way distinction for me
and at least a 2-way distinction for all Anglophones, AFAIK.
You've got a problem there, because as far as I know as an American,
most or all British dialects have no long version of the LOT vowel
or short version of the THOUGHT vowel.
My "dongle" has a long LOT vowel, but it's subtle: I'd classify it as
semi-long. And I can't think of any other word that does the same.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Jerry Friedman
2022-01-07 03:49:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 10:58:06 AM UTC+5:30, Jerry
On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 8:43:25 PM UTC-7, Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
Thanks to Peter Moylan for reminding me about Cot-Caught. That is
indeed standard but less satisfactory than my example. Cot and
Caught have a length distinction too in UK English. The examples I
gave have only a quality distinction, a 3-way distinction for me
and at least a 2-way distinction for all Anglophones, AFAIK.
You've got a problem there, because as far as I know as an American,
most or all British dialects have no long version of the LOT vowel
or short version of the THOUGHT vowel.
My "dongle" has a long LOT vowel, but it's subtle: I'd classify it as
semi-long. And I can't think of any other word that does the same.
Just shows you what I know.
--
Jerry Friedman
Dingbat
2022-01-08 02:36:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 10:58:06 AM UTC+5:30, Jerry
You've got a problem there, because as far as I know as an American,
most or all British dialects have no long version of the LOT vowel
or short version of the THOUGHT vowel.
My "dongle" has a long LOT vowel, but it's subtle: I'd classify it as
semi-long. And I can't think of any other word that does the same.
--
shOne has a longer lOt vowel than shOck, crOtch, shOt or shOp
in UK English, to my ear. cOndiment too but that could be
attributed to stress patterns found in multi-syllable words .
Jerry Friedman
2022-01-07 03:48:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
Thanks to Peter Moylan for reminding me about Cot-Caught.
That is indeed standard but less satisfactory than my example.
Cot and Caught have a length distinction too in UK English.
The examples I gave have only a quality distinction, a 3-way
distinction for me and at least a 2-way distinction for all
Anglophones, AFAIK.
You've got a problem there, because as far as I know as an American,
most or all British dialects have no long version of the LOT vowel or
short version of the THOUGHT vowel.
That raises the question: how do you pronounce "thot"?
Like "Well I was smoking and thinking and suddenly this tune gradually
began creeping into my thot's. It grew on me."?

I've never had occasion to pronounce it, and I've never been sure what
it meant, if anything, about Pal Joey's pronunciation. It bewilders me,
but it doesn't bewitch or bother me. I also don't know where Joey is
from. (He shows up in Chicago from somewhere else--Columbus,
Ohio? I recycled my /Great Short Stories of John O'Hara/ because it
had fallen apart.)

Anyway, Joey sometimes writes "tho't", so maybe he's just abbreviating
the spelling in a way that tells us nothing about his pronunciation.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
2022-01-07 15:10:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
Thanks to Peter Moylan for reminding me about Cot-Caught.
That is indeed standard but less satisfactory than my example.
Cot and Caught have a length distinction too in UK English.
The examples I gave have only a quality distinction, a 3-way
distinction for me and at least a 2-way distinction for all
Anglophones, AFAIK.
You've got a problem there, because as far as I know as an American,
most or all British dialects have no long version of the LOT vowel or
short version of the THOUGHT vowel.
That raises the question: how do you pronounce "thot"?
Like "Well I was smoking and thinking and suddenly this tune gradually
began creeping into my thot's. It grew on me."?
I've never had occasion to pronounce it, and I've never been sure what
it meant, if anything, about Pal Joey's pronunciation.
Eye dialect? I'm not familiar with Pal Joey, and the Internet tells me
it's a musical and film, so I'm a bit surprised that you'd know the
spelling but not the pronunciation.
If you ask the Internet nicely, it may reveal that Pal Joey started as
a short story and became a series of stories published as a book.
<https://food4thotpodcast.com/>
Wiktionary actually has it and says it rhymes with cot, which makes
sense, I guess.
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thot#Etymology_3>
I may actually have seen that somewhere, or not.
--
Jerry Friedman
Lewis
2022-01-07 18:33:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
Thanks to Peter Moylan for reminding me about Cot-Caught.
That is indeed standard but less satisfactory than my example.
Cot and Caught have a length distinction too in UK English.
The examples I gave have only a quality distinction, a 3-way
distinction for me and at least a 2-way distinction for all
Anglophones, AFAIK.
You've got a problem there, because as far as I know as an American,
most or all British dialects have no long version of the LOT vowel or
short version of the THOUGHT vowel.
That raises the question: how do you pronounce "thot"?
Like "Well I was smoking and thinking and suddenly this tune gradually
began creeping into my thot's. It grew on me."?
I've never had occasion to pronounce it, and I've never been sure what
it meant, if anything, about Pal Joey's pronunciation.
Eye dialect? I'm not familiar with Pal Joey, and the Internet tells me
it's a musical and film, so I'm a bit surprised that you'd know the
spelling but not the pronunciation.
<https://food4thotpodcast.com/>
Wiktionary actually has it and says it rhymes with cot, which makes
sense, I guess.
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thot#Etymology_3>
It's in ODE:

thot | θɒt |
noun informal, derogatory
a woman who has many casual sexual encounters or relationships.

But not in NOAD.
--
Post by Jerry Friedman
Trying?
if you quote yoda, i swear upon everything holy that i will book a
flight to okinawa to kick your ass.
Quinn C
2022-01-07 23:15:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
Thanks to Peter Moylan for reminding me about Cot-Caught.
That is indeed standard but less satisfactory than my example.
Cot and Caught have a length distinction too in UK English.
The examples I gave have only a quality distinction, a 3-way
distinction for me and at least a 2-way distinction for all
Anglophones, AFAIK.
You've got a problem there, because as far as I know as an American,
most or all British dialects have no long version of the LOT vowel or
short version of the THOUGHT vowel.
That raises the question: how do you pronounce "thot"?
Like "Well I was smoking and thinking and suddenly this tune gradually
began creeping into my thot's. It grew on me."?
I've never had occasion to pronounce it, and I've never been sure what
it meant, if anything, about Pal Joey's pronunciation.
Eye dialect? I'm not familiar with Pal Joey, and the Internet tells me
it's a musical and film, so I'm a bit surprised that you'd know the
spelling but not the pronunciation.
<https://food4thotpodcast.com/>
Wiktionary actually has it and says it rhymes with cot, which makes
sense, I guess.
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thot#Etymology_3>
OED, I assume. Thanks for checking. I have access through my library,
but it's not the smoothest process (e.g. I often have to get off VPN
first.)
Post by Lewis
thot | θɒt |
noun informal, derogatory
a woman who has many casual sexual encounters or relationships.
Not an ODE TO A THOT, that.
--
Americans are not that comfortable with being uncomfortable.
-- Veronica Osorio
Quinn C
2022-01-08 18:14:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
<https://food4thotpodcast.com/>
Wiktionary actually has it and says it rhymes with cot, which makes
sense, I guess.
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thot#Etymology_3>
OED, I assume.
No. ODE is the Oxford Dictionary of English, a smaller and more
frequently updated dictionary than the full OED.
<https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199571123.001.0001/acref-9780199571123>
Huh - a name designed to confuse. I'd have suspected a different company
trying to steal the prestige of the OED (although they surely wouldn't
have gotten away with it.)
--
There is no freedom for men unless there is freedom for women.
If women mustn't bring their will to the fore, why should men
be allowed to?
-- Hedwig Dohm (1876), my translation
Silvano
2022-01-11 14:58:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
No. ODE is the Oxford Dictionary of English, a smaller and more
frequently updated dictionary than the full OED.
<https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199571123.001.0001/acref-9780199571123>
Really odd. I clicked your link, but I can find there only the Egyptian
god Thoth.
Quinn C
2022-01-11 15:15:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Silvano
No. ODE is the Oxford Dictionary of English, a smaller and more
frequently updated dictionary than the full OED.
<https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199571123.001.0001/acref-9780199571123>
Really odd. I clicked your link, but I can find there only the Egyptian
god Thoth.
Uh-oh. You may have been summoned.
--
The lack of any sense of play between them worried Miles. You
had to have a keen sense of humor to do sex and stay sane.
-- L. McMaster Bujold, Memory
Lewis
2022-01-11 22:02:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Silvano
No. ODE is the Oxford Dictionary of English, a smaller and more
frequently updated dictionary than the full OED.
<https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199571123.001.0001/acref-9780199571123>
Really odd. I clicked your link, but I can find there only the Egyptian
god Thoth.
The link was simply to illustrate that there is a "Oxford Dictionary of
English" The version I have is integrated into macOS (née OS X) and may
be more updated that the version at that link. I don't know about the
internals of oxfordreference.com.
--
Professor falls into a hole
(Raiders of the Lost Ark)
Ken Blake
2022-01-07 17:05:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
Thanks to Peter Moylan for reminding me about Cot-Caught.
That is indeed standard but less satisfactory than my example.
Cot and Caught have a length distinction too in UK English.
The examples I gave have only a quality distinction, a 3-way
distinction for me and at least a 2-way distinction for all
Anglophones, AFAIK.
You've got a problem there, because as far as I know as an American,
most or all British dialects have no long version of the LOT vowel or
short version of the THOUGHT vowel.
That raises the question: how do you pronounce "thot"?
I don't pronounce it. If that's a word, it's one I don't know.
Quinn C
2022-01-07 18:27:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
Thanks to Peter Moylan for reminding me about Cot-Caught.
That is indeed standard but less satisfactory than my example.
Cot and Caught have a length distinction too in UK English.
The examples I gave have only a quality distinction, a 3-way
distinction for me and at least a 2-way distinction for all
Anglophones, AFAIK.
You've got a problem there, because as far as I know as an American,
most or all British dialects have no long version of the LOT vowel or
short version of the THOUGHT vowel.
That raises the question: how do you pronounce "thot"?
I don't pronounce it. If that's a word, it's one I don't know.
I've had no need to say it, but sometimes it bothers me when I read a
word and am unsure of its pronunciation.
--
CW: Historical misogyny
Jbzna vf n cnve bs binevrf jvgu n uhzna orvat nggnpurq, jurernf
zna vf n uhzna orvat sheavfurq jvgu n cnve bs grfgrf.
-- Rudolf Virchow
Dingbat
2022-01-07 19:35:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
Thanks to Peter Moylan for reminding me about Cot-Caught.
That is indeed standard but less satisfactory than my example.
Cot and Caught have a length distinction too in UK English.
The examples I gave have only a quality distinction, a 3-way
distinction for me and at least a 2-way distinction for all
Anglophones, AFAIK.
You've got a problem there, because as far as I know as an American,
most or all British dialects have no long version of the LOT vowel or
short version of the THOUGHT vowel.
English words in Hindi that I've seem spelled in Devanagari:
CONSTITUTION starts with a long vowel that has allophones [A.:] & [aU] in Hindi.
I've seen it described as a very open rounded back vowel.
That makes it [A.:], not [O:].
BOSS starts with a vowel used only in loanwords from English.
It is short [A.] when not followed by r, like in BOSS.
It is long [O:] when followed by r, like in GEORGE.
Neither of these vowels occurs in Hindi words.
I haven't looked into why they spell CONSTITUTION with a long
vowel but BOSS with a short vowel.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
My Bawling has the same vowel as in Born/Borne/Bourne.
The other two are probably similar to your pronunciation.
That reminds me: I gave an American Bollinger's pronunciation of
his name as Bawlinger. By aw, I meant the Born vowel without the
rhoticicism. It sounded to me like either Bawlinger or Borlinger.
Was it the same as his THOUGHT vowels? Or his GOAT vowels
before /l/?
I don't know. I noticed his pronunciation only when he said his name.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Even some Americans with the cot-caught merger use something a lot
like your "aw". Maybe that's particularly common in the Pacific
Northwest?
NYC: COFFEE is kawfy or kwawfy like I'd say QUAFF E if there were a
beverage named E.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Post by Jerry Friedman
I'd suggest PALM, LOT,
and THOUGHT as often merged. Then there's NORTH and FORCE
(or "horse" and "hoarse"). "Bowling" has the GOAT vowel, but I don't
know of any dialect where that's merged with another vowel, unless
you count FORCE as having that vowel.
I have different vowels in Bowling and Goat: [o:] vs [oU].
...
But are those different allophones of the same phoneme?
Your mention below of a wholly-holy split suggests they aren't, but is
that just your pronunciation or a feature of an English dialect? And
if the latter, should it be analyzed as a phonemic split or a subphonemic
difference related to a difference in syllable boundaries or morphemes
between the two words?
I don't know how came to split them that way but I've noticed that
Anglophones' diphthongs get close to a pure vowel in some contexts.

Consider NEIGHBOR vs. Portuguese CADEIRA
I know a native Portuguese speaker who uses identical diphthongs in the two.
English speakers have a clearly discernable diphthong in NEIGHBOR but ask
them to pronounce the foreign word CADEIRA and their articulation sounds
more similar to the Indian word WADERA (landlord) with an [E:] than to the
native Portuguese pronunciation with an [eI].
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
I pronounce WHOLLY HOLY as [ho:lI hoUli].
Such a minimal pair suggests that I have a phonemic
distinction /o/ vs /oU/ in my English.
I think I pronounce those words the same, or maybe with gemination
of the /l/ for "wholly", especially or only in "marked" pronunciation.
Like wholely?
Yes, not that I'd spell it that way.
Dingbat
2022-01-15 02:19:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
What comes to mind is Balling-Bawling-Bowling.
I have [A.:], [O:] & [o:] in these.
I'd never heard of anyone who pronounces "balling" differently from
"bawling".
I'm not sure what vowels are on your list.
My Bawling has the same vowel as in Born/Borne/Bourne.
Brits pronounce Balling too that way.
It seems that only I pronounce Bawling like Brits but
Balling like Americans.
Post by Dingbat
The other two are probably similar to your pronunciation.
Quinn C
2022-01-15 15:49:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
What comes to mind is Balling-Bawling-Bowling.
I have [A.:], [O:] & [o:] in these.
I'd never heard of anyone who pronounces "balling" differently from
"bawling".
I'm not sure what vowels are on your list.
My Bawling has the same vowel as in Born/Borne/Bourne.
Brits pronounce Balling too that way.
It seems that only I pronounce Bawling like Brits but
Balling like Americans.
That still doesn't make much sense, because American non-mergerers
pronounce them pretty much like Brits.

Do you rhyme balling with lolling?

AFAICS, [A.:] doesn't exist in any major dialect of English.
--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against
his government.
-- Edward Abbey
Dingbat
2022-01-15 17:14:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
What comes to mind is Balling-Bawling-Bowling.
I have [A.:], [O:] & [o:] in these.
I'd never heard of anyone who pronounces "balling" differently from
"bawling".
I'm not sure what vowels are on your list.
My Bawling has the same vowel as in Born/Borne/Bourne.
Brits pronounce Balling too that way.
It seems that only I pronounce Bawling like Brits but
Balling like Americans.
That still doesn't make much sense, because American non-mergerers
pronounce them pretty much like Brits.
I wasn't alluding to non-mergerers.
Post by Quinn C
Do you rhyme balling with lolling?
Yeah.
Post by Quinn C
AFAICS, [A.:] doesn't exist in any major dialect of English.
My vowel quality distinction exists in UK English in other word pairs:
Cawed vs. Cod, Dawn vs Don, Pawned vs, Pond.
Quinn C
2022-01-16 16:03:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Quinn C
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
What comes to mind is Balling-Bawling-Bowling.
I have [A.:], [O:] & [o:] in these.
I'd never heard of anyone who pronounces "balling" differently from
"bawling".
I'm not sure what vowels are on your list.
My Bawling has the same vowel as in Born/Borne/Bourne.
Brits pronounce Balling too that way.
It seems that only I pronounce Bawling like Brits but
Balling like Americans.
That still doesn't make much sense, because American non-mergerers
pronounce them pretty much like Brits.
I wasn't alluding to non-mergerers.
Post by Quinn C
Do you rhyme balling with lolling?
Yeah.
Post by Quinn C
AFAICS, [A.:] doesn't exist in any major dialect of English.
Cawed vs. Cod, Dawn vs Don, Pawned vs, Pond.
[O:] vs. [A.], typically.

But I correct my broad statement: [A.:] is listed for parts of Ireland
and Wales, besides as an option in InE and BarE (Bajan).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet_chart_for_English_dialects>

This often goes along with pronuncing bowling as [o:] as well.
--
What Phrenzy in my Bosom rag'd,
And by what Care to be asswag'd?
-- Sappho, transl. Addison (1711)
What was it that my distracted heart most wanted?
-- transl. Barnard (1958)
Dingbat
2022-01-21 09:26:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Dingbat
Post by Quinn C
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
What comes to mind is Balling-Bawling-Bowling.
I have [A.:], [O:] & [o:] in these.
I'd never heard of anyone who pronounces "balling" differently from
"bawling".
I'm not sure what vowels are on your list.
My Bawling has the same vowel as in Born/Borne/Bourne.
Brits pronounce Balling too that way.
It seems that only I pronounce Bawling like Brits but
Balling like Americans.
That still doesn't make much sense, because American non-mergerers
pronounce them pretty much like Brits.
I wasn't alluding to non-mergerers.
Post by Quinn C
Do you rhyme balling with lolling?
Yeah.
Post by Quinn C
AFAICS, [A.:] doesn't exist in any major dialect of English.
Cawed vs. Cod, Dawn vs Don, Pawned vs, Pond.
[O:] vs. [A.], typically.
I was mentioning just quality, not length, in that statement, but to Indians'
ears, UK English /A./ has allophones of [A.] and [A.:], since English /A./ is
transcribed into Hindi as 2 vowels differing in length.
The <o> in <Consitution> is transcribed as long.
The <o> in <Boss> is transcribed as short.
I've seen both words spelled in Hindi.
Post by Quinn C
But I correct my broad statement: [A.:] is listed for parts of Ireland
and Wales, besides as an option in InE and BarE (Bajan).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet_chart_for_English_dialects>
This often goes along with pronuncing bowling as [o:] as well.
--
What Phrenzy in my Bosom rag'd,
And by what Care to be asswag'd?
-- Sappho, transl. Addison (1711)
What was it that my distracted heart most wanted?
-- transl. Barnard (1958)
Peter T. Daniels
2022-01-21 14:22:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
I was mentioning just quality, not length, in that statement, but to Indians'
ears, UK English /A./ has allophones of [A.] and [A.:], since English /A./ is
transcribed into Hindi as 2 vowels differing in length.
The <o> in <Consitution> is transcribed as long.
The <o> in <Boss> is transcribed as short.
I've seen both words spelled in Hindi.
Those two <o>s are pronounced as different phonemes.

LOT and CLOTH respectively.

Devanagari doesn't have two lengths of <o>, so what Hindi
transcriptions are you talking about?
Dingbat
2022-01-21 16:13:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
I was mentioning just quality, not length, in that statement, but to Indians'
ears, UK English /A./ has allophones of [A.] and [A.:], since English /A./ is
transcribed into Hindi as 2 vowels differing in length.
The <o> in <Consitution> is transcribed as long.
The <o> in <Boss> is transcribed as short.
I've seen both words spelled in Hindi.
Those two <o>s are pronounced as different phonemes.
LOT and CLOTH respectively.
Devanagari doesn't have two lengths of <o>, so what Hindi
transcriptions are you talking about?
Two lengths of [ɒ]
कौ [kɒː] starts Constitution
बॉ [bɒ] starts Boss

It has two lengths of [o] too, only the long of which is used for native Hindi words.
Look up the Unicode Devanagari code chart for what the short one looks like.

The short could be used in dictionary pronunciation descriptions of foreign words;
I haven't seen it in texts for public consumption.

Kashmiri has short and long [e] but when written in Devanagari, the short one is
written as the long one plus a diacritic; the short [e] matra provided by Unicode
Devanagari is not used.
Peter T. Daniels
2022-01-21 17:58:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
I was mentioning just quality, not length, in that statement, but to Indians'
ears, UK English /A./ has allophones of [A.] and [A.:], since English /A./ is
transcribed into Hindi as 2 vowels differing in length.
The <o> in <Consitution> is transcribed as long.
The <o> in <Boss> is transcribed as short.
I've seen both words spelled in Hindi.
Those two <o>s are pronounced as different phonemes.
LOT and CLOTH respectively.
Devanagari doesn't have two lengths of <o>, so what Hindi
transcriptions are you talking about?
Two lengths of [ɒ]
कौ [kɒː] starts Constitution
बॉ [bɒ] starts Boss
In English, those are not /a/s -- see how Wells indicated them
with Os in lot and cloth. LOT in _American_, of course, has
merged with /a/, and CLOTH has [ɔ] not [ɒ].

That long-a-with-chandra is non-standard in Hindi. This is the Wikip
note about it:

"There are two more vowels in Marathi as well as Konkani, ॲ and ऑ,
that respectively represent [æ], similar to the RP English pronunciation
of ⟨a⟩ in ‘act’, and [ɒ], similar to the RP pronunciation of ⟨o⟩ in ‘cot’.
These vowels are sometimes used in Hindi too, as in डॉलर dôlar,
"dollar". IAST transliteration is not defined. In ISO 15919, the
transliteration is ê and ô, respectively.
Post by Dingbat
It has two lengths of [o] too, only the long of which is used for native Hindi words.
Look up the Unicode Devanagari code chart for what the short one looks like.
The short could be used in dictionary pronunciation descriptions of foreign words;
I haven't seen it in texts for public consumption.
Kashmiri has short and long [e] but when written in Devanagari, the short one is
written as the long one plus a diacritic; the short [e] matra provided by Unicode
Devanagari is not used.
Dingbat
2022-01-22 00:05:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
I was mentioning just quality, not length, in that statement, but to Indians'
ears, UK English /A./ has allophones of [A.] and [A.:], since English /A./ is
transcribed into Hindi as 2 vowels differing in length.
The <o> in <Consitution> is transcribed as long.
The <o> in <Boss> is transcribed as short.
I've seen both words spelled in Hindi.
Those two <o>s are pronounced as different phonemes.
LOT and CLOTH respectively.
Devanagari doesn't have two lengths of <o>, so what Hindi
transcriptions are you talking about?
Two lengths of [ɒ]
कौ [kɒː] starts Constitution
बॉ [bɒ] starts Boss
In English, those are not /a/s -- see how Wells indicated them
with Os in lot and cloth.
In Hindi, कौ is either [kɒː] or [kɐi] depending on context.
Thereby, in English spoken by Hindi speakers, Constitution
starts with [kɒː]. How do Anglophones pronounce it?
Well, Indians heard them pronouncing it as [kɒː]; that's
why it's transcribed that way in Hindi. It might be that Con
is stressed in English, with Indians hearing the stress as
length.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
LOT in _American_, of course, has
merged with /a/, and CLOTH has [ɔ] not [ɒ].
How does Wells hear CLOTH? He uses /ɔ/ now but at one time,
he used ɒ, I forget whether as a phoneme or phone. He also mentioned
that when he made the change from ɒ to ɔ, he considered adding
a diacritic to /ɔ/ to indicate that it is [ɔ] before r but [ɒ] elsewhere,
possibly referring only to English spoken on one side of the "pond".
Show something he has written to confirm your claim that he says /ɔ/
in CLOTH is articulated as [ɔ] and not [ɒ].
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That long-a-with-chandra is non-standard in Hindi.
"There are two more vowels in Marathi as well as Konkani, ॲ and ऑ,
that respectively represent [æ], similar to the RP English pronunciation
of ⟨a⟩ in ‘act’, and [ɒ], similar to the RP pronunciation of ⟨o⟩ in ‘cot’.
These vowels are sometimes used in Hindi too, as in डॉलर dôlar,
"dollar". IAST transliteration is not defined. In ISO 15919, the
transliteration is ê and ô, respectively.
That Wikip is wrong on two counts:

1) Marathi's way of writing CAT is never used in Hindi except
possibly in some dictionary's pronunciation key. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>,
since NEVER is not SOMETIMES.

2) Your "long-a-with-chandra" is as standard in Hindi as in Marathi for
transcribing foreign words and names, in the Hindi texts I've seen. So,
the Wikip is wrong to say that it is used less in Hindi than in Marathi.

Hindi has nativized loanwords like BOX altered to what sounds like
Bucks, that might not be so altered in Marathi. But a name Bochs
wouldn't be nativized in Hindi; it would be written the same way
as in Marathi.
Dingbat
2022-01-22 00:18:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
I was mentioning just quality, not length, in that statement, but to Indians'
ears, UK English /A./ has allophones of [A.] and [A.:], since English /A./ is
transcribed into Hindi as 2 vowels differing in length.
The <o> in <Consitution> is transcribed as long.
The <o> in <Boss> is transcribed as short.
I've seen both words spelled in Hindi.
Those two <o>s are pronounced as different phonemes.
LOT and CLOTH respectively.
Devanagari doesn't have two lengths of <o>, so what Hindi
transcriptions are you talking about?
Two lengths of [ɒ]
कौ [kɒː] starts Constitution
बॉ [bɒ] starts Boss
In English, those are not /a/s -- see how Wells indicated them
with Os in lot and cloth.
In Hindi, कौ is either [kɒː] or [kɐi] depending on context.
Thereby, in English spoken by Hindi speakers, Constitution
starts with [kɒː]. How do Anglophones pronounce it?
Well, Indians heard them pronouncing it as [kɒː]; that's
why it's transcribed that way in Hindi. It might be that Con
is stressed in English, with Indians hearing the stress as
length.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
LOT in _American_, of course, has
merged with /a/, and CLOTH has [ɔ] not [ɒ].
How does Wells hear CLOTH? He uses /ɔ/ now but at one time,
he used ɒ, I forget whether as a phoneme or phone. He also mentioned
that when he made the change from ɒ to ɔ, he considered adding
a diacritic to /ɔ/ to indicate that it is [ɔ] before r but [ɒ] elsewhere,
possibly referring only to English spoken on one side of the "pond".
Show something he has written to confirm your claim that he says /ɔ/
in CLOTH is articulated as [ɔ:] and not [ɒ:].
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That long-a-with-chandra is non-standard in Hindi.
"There are two more vowels in Marathi as well as Konkani, ॲ and ऑ,
that respectively represent [æ], similar to the RP English pronunciation
of ⟨a⟩ in ‘act’, and [ɒ], similar to the RP pronunciation of ⟨o⟩ in ‘cot’.
These vowels are sometimes used in Hindi too, as in डॉलर dôlar,
"dollar". IAST transliteration is not defined. In ISO 15919, the
transliteration is ê and ô, respectively.
That Wikip is wrong on two counts:

1) Marathi's way of writing CAT is never used in Hindi except
possibly in some dictionary's pronunciation key. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>,
since NEVER is not SOMETIMES.

2) Your "long-a-with-chandra" is as standard in Hindi as in Marathi for
transcribing foreign words and names, in the Hindi texts I've seen. So,
the Wikip is wrong to say that it is used less in Hindi than in Marathi.

Hindi has nativized loanwords like BOX altered to what sounds like
Bucks, that might not be so altered in Marathi. But a name Bochs
would always be written the same way as in Marathi. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>, since
ALWAYS is not SOMETIMES.
Dingbat
2022-01-22 00:50:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
I was mentioning just quality, not length, in that statement, but to Indians'
ears, UK English /A./ has allophones of [A.] and [A.:], since English /A./ is
transcribed into Hindi as 2 vowels differing in length.
The <o> in <Consitution> is transcribed as long.
The <o> in <Boss> is transcribed as short.
I've seen both words spelled in Hindi.
Those two <o>s are pronounced as different phonemes.
LOT and CLOTH respectively.
Devanagari doesn't have two lengths of <o>, so what Hindi
transcriptions are you talking about?
Two lengths of [ɒ]
कौ [kɒː] starts Constitution
बॉ [bɒ] starts Boss
In English, those are not /a/s -- see how Wells indicated them
with Os in lot and cloth.
In Hindi, कौ is either [kɒː] or [kɐʊ] depending on context.
Thereby, in English spoken by Hindi speakers, Constitution
starts with [kɒː]. How do Anglophones pronounce it?
Well, Indians heard them pronouncing it as [kɒː]; that's
why it's transcribed that way in Hindi. It might be that Con
has primary stress in English, with Indians hearing the stress
as length, being that one manifestation of English stress is
increased length.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
LOT in _American_, of course, has
merged with /a/, and CLOTH has [ɔ] not [ɒ].
How does Wells hear CLOTH? He uses /ɔ/ now but at one time,
he used ɒ, I forget whether as a phoneme or phone. He also mentioned
that when he made the change from ɒ to ɔ, he considered adding
a diacritic to /ɔ/ to indicate that it is [ɔ:] before r but [ɒ:] elsewhere.
That it sounds like [ɒ:] to the UK English ear is obviously why he
originally chose ɒ. His change to /ɔ/ was evidently driven by his
(re)analysis that [ɔ:] and [ɒ:] are one phoneme in US English. Correct
me if I misremember what he has written on the subject. Or show
something he has written, to confirm your suggestion that he finds
/ɔ/ in CLOTH to be articulated as [ɔ:] and not [ɒ:].
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That long-a-with-chandra is non-standard in Hindi.
"There are two more vowels in Marathi as well as Konkani, ॲ and ऑ,
that respectively represent [æ], similar to the RP English pronunciation
of ⟨a⟩ in ‘act’, and [ɒ], similar to the RP pronunciation of ⟨o⟩ in ‘cot’.
These vowels are sometimes used in Hindi too, as in डॉलर dôlar,
"dollar". IAST transliteration is not defined. In ISO 15919, the
transliteration is ê and ô, respectively.
That Wikip is wrong on two counts:

1) Marathi's way of writing CAT is never used in Hindi except
possibly in some dictionary's pronunciation key. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>,
since NEVER is not SOMETIMES.

2) Your "long-a-with-chandra" is as standard in Hindi as in Marathi for
transcribing foreign words and names, in the Hindi texts I've seen. So,
the Wikip is wrong to say that it is used less in Hindi than in Marathi.
Hindi has nativized loanwords like BOX altered to what sounds like
Bucks, that might not be so altered in Marathi. But a name Bochs
would always be written the same way as in Marathi. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>, since
ALWAYS is not SOMETIMES.
Peter T. Daniels
2022-01-22 03:45:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
I was mentioning just quality, not length, in that statement, but to Indians'
ears, UK English /A./ has allophones of [A.] and [A.:], since English /A./ is
transcribed into Hindi as 2 vowels differing in length.
The <o> in <Consitution> is transcribed as long.
The <o> in <Boss> is transcribed as short.
I've seen both words spelled in Hindi.
Those two <o>s are pronounced as different phonemes.
LOT and CLOTH respectively.
Devanagari doesn't have two lengths of <o>, so what Hindi
transcriptions are you talking about?
Two lengths of [ɒ]
कौ [kɒː] starts Constitution
बॉ [bɒ] starts Boss
In English, those are not /a/s -- see how Wells indicated them
with Os in lot and cloth.
In Hindi, कौ is either [kɒː] or [kɐʊ] depending on context.
Thereby, in English spoken by Hindi speakers, Constitution
starts with [kɒː]. How do Anglophones pronounce it?
Well, Indians heard them pronouncing it as [kɒː]; that's
why it's transcribed that way in Hindi. It might be that Con
has primary stress in English, with Indians hearing the stress
as length, being that one manifestation of English stress is
increased length.
The main stress is on -TU-, secondary stress on con-.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
LOT in _American_, of course, has
merged with /a/, and CLOTH has [ɔ] not [ɒ].
How does Wells hear CLOTH? He uses /ɔ/ now but at one time,
he used ɒ, I forget whether as a phoneme or phone. He also mentioned
that when he made the change from ɒ to ɔ, he considered adding
a diacritic to /ɔ/ to indicate that it is [ɔ:] before r but [ɒ:] elsewhere.
That it sounds like [ɒ:] to the UK English ear is obviously why he
originally chose ɒ. His change to /ɔ/ was evidently driven by his
(re)analysis that [ɔ:] and [ɒ:] are one phoneme in US English. Correct
me if I misremember what he has written on the subject. Or show
something he has written, to confirm your suggestion that he finds
/ɔ/ in CLOTH to be articulated as [ɔ:] and not [ɒ:].
Sigh. The point of his analysis is to identify _all_ the phonemic
contrasts in _any_ (major) dialect of English. Naturally most of
his attention goes to RP (as it was in 1982), with the rest of the
world in the 3rd vol., but there are notes on GenAm in the first
two. Therefore Wells does not "hear" or "find" any specific
pronunciation for each of the 24 classes.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That long-a-with-chandra is non-standard in Hindi.
"There are two more vowels in Marathi as well as Konkani, ॲ and ऑ,
that respectively represent [æ], similar to the RP English pronunciation
of ⟨a⟩ in ‘act’, and [ɒ], similar to the RP pronunciation of ⟨o⟩ in ‘cot’.
These vowels are sometimes used in Hindi too, as in डॉलर dôlar,
"dollar". IAST transliteration is not defined. In ISO 15919, the
transliteration is ê and ô, respectively.
1) Marathi's way of writing CAT is never used in Hindi except
Please read what it says. Not that. It's poorly written, and should
probably say "these matras are sometimes used," not "these
vowels are sometimes used." The chandra one is used for
whatever the Hindi pronunciation of unassimilated "dollar" is.
Post by Dingbat
possibly in some dictionary's pronunciation key. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>,
since NEVER is not SOMETIMES.
2) Your "long-a-with-chandra" is as standard in Hindi as in Marathi for
transcribing foreign words and names, in the Hindi texts I've seen. So,
the Wikip is wrong to say that it is used less in Hindi than in Marathi.
Hindi has nativized loanwords like BOX altered to what sounds like
Bucks, that might not be so altered in Marathi. But a name Bochs
would always be written the same way as in Marathi. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>, since
ALWAYS is not SOMETIMES.
In other words, you can sometimes find examples in unassimilated
loanwords and proper names. That's like saying /x/ is an English
phoneme because of Bach.
Dingbat
2022-01-22 06:51:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
I was mentioning just quality, not length, in that statement, but to Indians'
ears, UK English /A./ has allophones of [A.] and [A.:], since English /A./ is
transcribed into Hindi as 2 vowels differing in length.
The <o> in <Consitution> is transcribed as long.
The <o> in <Boss> is transcribed as short.
I've seen both words spelled in Hindi.
Those two <o>s are pronounced as different phonemes.
LOT and CLOTH respectively.
Devanagari doesn't have two lengths of <o>, so what Hindi
transcriptions are you talking about?
Two lengths of [ɒ]
कौ [kɒː] starts Constitution
बॉ [bɒ] starts Boss
In English, those are not /a/s -- see how Wells indicated them
with Os in lot and cloth.
In Hindi, कौ is either [kɒː] or [kɐʊ] depending on context.
Thereby, in English spoken by Hindi speakers, Constitution
starts with [kɒː]. How do Anglophones pronounce it?
Well, Indians heard them pronouncing it as [kɒː]; that's
why it's transcribed that way in Hindi. It might be that Con
has primary stress in English, with Indians hearing the stress
as length, being that one manifestation of English stress is
increased length.
The main stress is on -TU-, secondary stress on con-.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
LOT in _American_, of course, has
merged with /a/, and CLOTH has [ɔ] not [ɒ].
How does Wells hear CLOTH? He uses /ɔ/ now but at one time,
he used ɒ, I forget whether as a phoneme or phone. He also mentioned
that when he made the change from ɒ to ɔ, he considered adding
a diacritic to /ɔ/ to indicate that it is [ɔ:] before r but [ɒ:] elsewhere.
That it sounds like [ɒ:] to the UK English ear is obviously why he
originally chose ɒ. His change to /ɔ/ was evidently driven by his
(re)analysis that [ɔ:] and [ɒ:] are one phoneme in US English. Correct
me if I misremember what he has written on the subject. Or show
something he has written, to confirm your suggestion that he finds
/ɔ/ in CLOTH to be articulated as [ɔ:] and not [ɒ:].
Sigh. The point of his analysis is to identify _all_ the phonemic
contrasts in _any_ (major) dialect of English. Naturally most of
his attention goes to RP (as it was in 1982), with the rest of the
world in the 3rd vol., but there are notes on GenAm in the first
two. Therefore Wells does not "hear" or "find" any specific
pronunciation for each of the 24 classes.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That long-a-with-chandra is non-standard in Hindi.
"There are two more vowels in Marathi as well as Konkani, ॲ and ऑ,
that respectively represent [æ], similar to the RP English pronunciation
of ⟨a⟩ in ‘act’, and [ɒ], similar to the RP pronunciation of ⟨o⟩ in ‘cot’.
These vowels are sometimes used in Hindi too, as in डॉलर dôlar,
"dollar". IAST transliteration is not defined. In ISO 15919, the
transliteration is ê and ô, respectively.
1) Marathi's way of writing CAT is never used in Hindi except
Please read what it says. Not that. It's poorly written, and should
probably say "these matras are sometimes used," not "these
vowels are sometimes used." The chandra one is used for
whatever the Hindi pronunciation of unassimilated "dollar" is.
Post by Dingbat
possibly in some dictionary's pronunciation key. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>,
since NEVER is not SOMETIMES.
2) Your "long-a-with-chandra" is as standard in Hindi as in Marathi for
transcribing foreign words and names, in the Hindi texts I've seen. So,
the Wikip is wrong to say that it is used less in Hindi than in Marathi.
Hindi has nativized loanwords like BOX altered to what sounds like
Bucks, that might not be so altered in Marathi. But a name Bochs
would always be written the same way as in Marathi. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>, since
ALWAYS is not SOMETIMES.
In other words, you can sometimes find examples in unassimilated
loanwords and proper names. That's like saying /x/ is an English
phoneme because of Bach.
Not all loanwords are unassimilated. Many loanwords are assimilated
but not nativised like BOX was. I wouldn't be surprised if BOX too has
started being written with its English pronunciation rather than its
nativised Hindi pronunciation that sounds like Bucks. Malayalam
has the curious diglossic phenomenon of having nativised spelling of
loanwords that are not pronunced as spelled but pronounced with
with something approaching their foreign pronunciation except in the
lowest registers.
CDB
2022-01-22 14:03:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
I was mentioning just quality, not length, in that
statement, but to Indians' ears, UK English /A./ has
allophones of [A.] and [A.:], since English /A./ is
transcribed into Hindi as 2 vowels differing in length.
The <o> in <Consitution> is transcribed as long. The <o>
in <Boss> is transcribed as short. I've seen both words
spelled in Hindi.
Those two <o>s are pronounced as different phonemes. LOT
and CLOTH respectively. Devanagari doesn't have two
lengths of <o>, so what Hindi transcriptions are you
talking about?
Two lengths of [ɒ] कौ [kɒː] starts Constitution बॉ [bɒ]
starts Boss
In English, those are not /a/s -- see how Wells indicated them
with Os in lot and cloth.
In Hindi, कौ is either [kɒː] or [kɐʊ] depending on context.
Thereby, in English spoken by Hindi speakers, Constitution
starts with [kɒː]. How do Anglophones pronounce it? Well, Indians
heard them pronouncing it as [kɒː]; that's why it's transcribed
that way in Hindi. It might be that Con has primary stress in
English, with Indians hearing the stress as length, being that
one manifestation of English stress is increased length.
The main stress is on -TU-, secondary stress on con-.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
LOT in _American_, of course, has merged with /a/, and CLOTH
has [ɔ] not [ɒ].
How does Wells hear CLOTH? He uses /ɔ/ now but at one time, he
used ɒ, I forget whether as a phoneme or phone. He also mentioned
that when he made the change from ɒ to ɔ, he considered adding a
diacritic to /ɔ/ to indicate that it is [ɔ:] before r but [ɒ:]
elsewhere. That it sounds like [ɒ:] to the UK English ear is
obviously why he originally chose ɒ. His change to /ɔ/ was
evidently driven by his (re)analysis that [ɔ:] and [ɒ:] are one
phoneme in US English. Correct me if I misremember what he has
written on the subject. Or show something he has written, to
confirm your suggestion that he finds /ɔ/ in CLOTH to be
articulated as [ɔ:] and not [ɒ:].
Sigh. The point of his analysis is to identify _all_ the phonemic
contrasts in _any_ (major) dialect of English. Naturally most of
his attention goes to RP (as it was in 1982), with the rest of the
world in the 3rd vol., but there are notes on GenAm in the first
two. Therefore Wells does not "hear" or "find" any specific
pronunciation for each of the 24 classes.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That long-a-with-chandra is non-standard in Hindi. This is the
Wikip note about it: "There are two more vowels in Marathi as
well as Konkani, ॲ and ऑ, that respectively represent [æ],
similar to the RP English pronunciation of ⟨a⟩ in ‘act’, and
[ɒ], similar to the RP pronunciation of ⟨o⟩ in ‘cot’. These
vowels are sometimes used in Hindi too, as in डॉलर dôlar,
"dollar". IAST transliteration is not defined. In ISO 15919,
the transliteration is ê and ô, respectively.
1) Marathi's way of writing CAT is never used in Hindi except
Please read what it says. Not that. It's poorly written, and should
probably say "these matras are sometimes used," not "these vowels
are sometimes used." The chandra one is used for whatever the Hindi
pronunciation of unassimilated "dollar" is.
Post by Dingbat
possibly in some dictionary's pronunciation key. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>, since
NEVER is not SOMETIMES.
2) Your "long-a-with-chandra" is as standard in Hindi as in
Marathi for transcribing foreign words and names, in the Hindi
texts I've seen. So, the Wikip is wrong to say that it is used
less in Hindi than in Marathi. Hindi has nativized loanwords
like BOX altered to what sounds like Bucks, that might not be so
altered in Marathi. But a name Bochs would always be written the
same way as in Marathi. The Wikip is wrong to say <<these vowels
are sometimes used in Hindi>>, since ALWAYS is not SOMETIMES.
In other words, you can sometimes find examples in unassimilated
loanwords and proper names. That's like saying /x/ is an English
phoneme because of Bach.
Not all loanwords are unassimilated. Many loanwords are assimilated
but not nativised like BOX was. I wouldn't be surprised if BOX too
has started being written with its English pronunciation rather than
its nativised Hindi pronunciation that sounds like Bucks. Malayalam
has the curious diglossic phenomenon of having nativised spelling of
loanwords that are not pronunced as spelled but pronounced with
with something approaching their foreign pronunciation except in the
lowest registers.
Is it really still unsafe for you-lot (I speak advisedly) to go and hold
these technical discussions in sci.lang?
--
Garn, 'avva go.
S K
2022-01-22 14:39:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
I was mentioning just quality, not length, in that
statement, but to Indians' ears, UK English /A./ has
allophones of [A.] and [A.:], since English /A./ is
transcribed into Hindi as 2 vowels differing in length.
The <o> in <Consitution> is transcribed as long. The <o>
in <Boss> is transcribed as short. I've seen both words
spelled in Hindi.
Those two <o>s are pronounced as different phonemes. LOT
and CLOTH respectively. Devanagari doesn't have two
lengths of <o>, so what Hindi transcriptions are you
talking about?
Two lengths of [ɒ] कौ [kɒː] starts Constitution बॉ [bɒ]
starts Boss
In English, those are not /a/s -- see how Wells indicated them
with Os in lot and cloth.
In Hindi, कौ is either [kɒː] or [kɐʊ] depending on context.
Thereby, in English spoken by Hindi speakers, Constitution
starts with [kɒː]. How do Anglophones pronounce it? Well, Indians
heard them pronouncing it as [kɒː]; that's why it's transcribed
that way in Hindi. It might be that Con has primary stress in
English, with Indians hearing the stress as length, being that
one manifestation of English stress is increased length.
The main stress is on -TU-, secondary stress on con-.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
LOT in _American_, of course, has merged with /a/, and CLOTH
has [ɔ] not [ɒ].
How does Wells hear CLOTH? He uses /ɔ/ now but at one time, he
used ɒ, I forget whether as a phoneme or phone. He also mentioned
that when he made the change from ɒ to ɔ, he considered adding a
diacritic to /ɔ/ to indicate that it is [ɔ:] before r but [ɒ:]
elsewhere. That it sounds like [ɒ:] to the UK English ear is
obviously why he originally chose ɒ. His change to /ɔ/ was
evidently driven by his (re)analysis that [ɔ:] and [ɒ:] are one
phoneme in US English. Correct me if I misremember what he has
written on the subject. Or show something he has written, to
confirm your suggestion that he finds /ɔ/ in CLOTH to be
articulated as [ɔ:] and not [ɒ:].
Sigh. The point of his analysis is to identify _all_ the phonemic
contrasts in _any_ (major) dialect of English. Naturally most of
his attention goes to RP (as it was in 1982), with the rest of the
world in the 3rd vol., but there are notes on GenAm in the first
two. Therefore Wells does not "hear" or "find" any specific
pronunciation for each of the 24 classes.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That long-a-with-chandra is non-standard in Hindi. This is the
Wikip note about it: "There are two more vowels in Marathi as
well as Konkani, ॲ and ऑ, that respectively represent [æ],
similar to the RP English pronunciation of ⟨a⟩ in ‘act’, and
[ɒ], similar to the RP pronunciation of ⟨o⟩ in ‘cot’. These
vowels are sometimes used in Hindi too, as in डॉलर dôlar,
"dollar". IAST transliteration is not defined. In ISO 15919,
the transliteration is ê and ô, respectively.
1) Marathi's way of writing CAT is never used in Hindi except
Please read what it says. Not that. It's poorly written, and should
probably say "these matras are sometimes used," not "these vowels
are sometimes used." The chandra one is used for whatever the Hindi
pronunciation of unassimilated "dollar" is.
Post by Dingbat
possibly in some dictionary's pronunciation key. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>, since
NEVER is not SOMETIMES.
2) Your "long-a-with-chandra" is as standard in Hindi as in
Marathi for transcribing foreign words and names, in the Hindi
texts I've seen. So, the Wikip is wrong to say that it is used
less in Hindi than in Marathi. Hindi has nativized loanwords
like BOX altered to what sounds like Bucks, that might not be so
altered in Marathi. But a name Bochs would always be written the
same way as in Marathi. The Wikip is wrong to say <<these vowels
are sometimes used in Hindi>>, since ALWAYS is not SOMETIMES.
In other words, you can sometimes find examples in unassimilated
loanwords and proper names. That's like saying /x/ is an English
phoneme because of Bach.
Not all loanwords are unassimilated. Many loanwords are assimilated
but not nativised like BOX was. I wouldn't be surprised if BOX too
has started being written with its English pronunciation rather than
its nativised Hindi pronunciation that sounds like Bucks. Malayalam
has the curious diglossic phenomenon of having nativised spelling of
loanwords that are not pronunced as spelled but pronounced with
with something approaching their foreign pronunciation except in the
lowest registers.
Is it really still unsafe for you-lot (I speak advisedly) to go and hold
these technical discussions in sci.lang?
--
Garn, 'avva go.
the "technical" part is fine, but it is the arrant lies they traffic in that's the problem.

language is studied fruitfully by grammar.

linguistics is just a "tomato is not a vegetable" layer on top - full of lies,quibbles,undefined terms etc. that often generates ill-will - these gentry are at each others' throats a lot.
Peter T. Daniels
2022-01-22 14:54:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
Is it really still unsafe for you-lot (I speak advisedly) to go and hold
these technical discussions in sci.lang?
Was it really necessary to copy the entire thing?

"unsafe"?

He once multiposted to sci.lang and AUE.

It might be educational for lar3 to see what linguistics (or a
tiny corner of it) actually is. Except we now know that he is
unwilling to undergo any new experiences at all.

Except, apparently, changing his nym almost as often as
"Commander Kinsey" to evade the "killfiles" of those he
has disgusted with his closed-mindedness and ignorance.
CDB
2022-01-22 16:23:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Is it really still unsafe for you-lot (I speak advisedly) to go and
hold these technical discussions in sci.lang?
Was it really necessary to copy the entire thing?
A horrible example.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"unsafe"?
There must be some reason you are droning on about things that interest
only those who could read them in that group instead.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
He once multiposted to sci.lang and AUE.
It might be educational for lar3 to see what linguistics (or a tiny
corner of it) actually is. Except we now know that he is unwilling to
undergo any new experiences at all.
Except, apparently, changing his nym almost as often as "Commander
Kinsey" to evade the "killfiles" of those he has disgusted with his
closed-mindedness and ignorance.
You exaggerate, as you often do. I don't always agree with Larry*, but
he certainly doesn't disgust me. If I had a real killfile, and not just
a virtual one pro tem, he would not be in it.

*For instance, I find his aversion to all organ music incomprehensible.
JSB's Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor has given me repeated
psychedelic experiences, even before you told me that the repeated notes
are a feature of the form. Thinking of them as a ground bass did not
impair my enjoyment.

Try listening to this, Lar, and think of night and the approaching
storm. Try to decide when I begin flying in the dark, with the cold
rain driving through my body like Saint Teresa's arrows, and the
crashing thunder the same as the mountains below me, and the clouds lit
by fearful hidden lightnings. Can't do that on a Wurlitzer.


Peter T. Daniels
2022-01-22 17:24:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
JSB's Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor has given me repeated
psychedelic experiences, even before you told me that the repeated notes
are a feature of the form. Thinking of them as a ground bass did not
impair my enjoyment.
Also, I've read that they're supposed to be in 3/4 time.

Can you really call the Bach one a ground bass, when in the
middle portions the theme migrates up to the top register
and back down again?

It's also, incidentally, one of the few where the fugue relates
in more than just key to what it follows -- the d minor t & f is
another. A few in the WTC collection do.

Perhaps the greatest monument of solo piano music of the
20th century is Stefan Wolpe's Passacaglia. I first heard it in
2000 when Juilliard offered a free series called Piano Century,
with 10 recitals, each featuring works written in one of the
decades (in order, of course). (I didn't hear about it until the
fourth one, the 1930s.) No composer was represented by
more than one work, and no Juilliard piano student got to
play more than one work.

(Note to lar3: I went to each one, from 1930s to 1990s, out
of curiosity, not expecting to like much, because I don't particularly
care for solo piano music, but found things to like from every decade.)

The Wolpe just blew me away. Not only could the theme be
followed through all the variations, but it's written in (what
seems to be) strict Schoenbergian 12-tone style. I acquired
as many of the (surprisingly many) recordings as I could,
which brought along with them -- it's about 12 minutes -- other
works of his, or of contemporaries, and learned a bit of his
biography. As a refugee in Palestine he turned from Modern
to folk-music influences (sort of like Bartok) and then moved
to New York for a while, where he fit in with the avant-garde
community. (His twelve-tone phase didn't last long.)

If you're curious about that sort of thing, do give a listen
to those two short things: Schoenberg's Survivor from
Warsaw and Wolpe's Passacaglia. (The oft-recommended
Berg Violin Concerto doesn't do anything for me.)
Post by CDB
Try listening to this, Lar, and think of night and the approaching
storm. Try to decide when I begin flying in the dark, with the cold
rain driving through my body like Saint Teresa's arrows, and the
crashing thunder the same as the mountains below me, and the clouds lit
by fearful hidden lightnings. Can't do that on a Wurlitzer.
http://youtu.be/zzBXZ__LN_M
What a fine instrument! A little after Bach's time, though.
Does "Lutheran Church, Amsterdam" suffice to identify
it uniquely?

I haven't seen an organist sway around like that since
Virgil Fox. I've left the tab open to listen till the end but
come back here to finish up AUE. From your description
I expected mystical visuals like the first movement of
*Fantasia*. (I haven't watched the reissue with Stokowski's
orchestra replaced by some modern guy.)

Another JSB wonder is the g minor Fantasy and Fugue. The
opening line is spectacular (I think maybe a cello could play
it all the way from top to bottom) -- but in the middle of the
Fantasy is a chordal passage where he just winds straight through
all twelve keys (see previous discussion), one chord each, making
use of diminished sevenths in a way that wouldn't be approached
until Beethoven turned it into a cliché. (Probably his contemporaries
would say, Oh, he's just showing off. That's our Seb!)
Ruud Harmsen
2022-01-22 18:19:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
http://youtu.be/zzBXZ__LN_M
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 09:24:18 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
What a fine instrument! A little after Bach's time, though.
Does "Lutheran Church, Amsterdam" suffice to identify
it uniquely?
The description says "Lutheran Church, The Hague". Den Haag is not
Amsterdam. I remember having been in the "Lutherse kerk" in Den Haag
once, also when there was a concert, by a choir.

There's another one in Utrecht (also very much not Amsterdam):
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherse_Kerk_(Utrecht)>

This is the one in Den Haag (a.k.a. ’s Gravenhage):
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherse_kerk_(Den_Haag)>
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I haven't seen an organist sway around like that since
Virgil Fox.
I happen to know him personally. He used to live in the same town as
me, even the same street. Not any more, though, we both moved.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I've left the tab open to listen till the end but
come back here to finish up AUE. From your description
I expected mystical visuals like the first movement of
*Fantasia*. (I haven't watched the reissue with Stokowski's
orchestra replaced by some modern guy.)
Peter T. Daniels
2022-01-22 18:56:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 09:24:18 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
[Harmsen's screwing with the attributions repaired]
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
http://youtu.be/zzBXZ__LN_M
What a fine instrument! A little after Bach's time, though.
Does "Lutheran Church, Amsterdam" suffice to identify
it uniquely?
The description says "Lutheran Church, The Hague". Den Haag is not
Amsterdam. I remember having been in the "Lutherse kerk" in Den Haag
once, also when there was a concert, by a choir.
Sigh. Does "Lutheran Church, the Hague" suffice to identify it uniquely?"

I looked at it once, scrolled back up to the video, and came back
to this tab.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherse_Kerk_(Utrecht)>
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherse_kerk_(Den_Haag)>
"The one"? Only one Lutheran church in a good-sized city?
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I haven't seen an organist sway around like that since
Virgil Fox.
I happen to know him personally. He used to live in the same town as
me, even the same street. Not any more, though, we both moved.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I've left the tab open to listen till the end but
come back here to finish up AUE. From your description
I expected mystical visuals like the first movement of
*Fantasia*. (I haven't watched the reissue with Stokowski's
orchestra replaced by some modern guy.)
Ruud Harmsen
2022-01-22 19:37:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 10:56:53 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 09:24:18 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
[Harmsen's screwing with the attributions repaired]
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
http://youtu.be/zzBXZ__LN_M
What a fine instrument! A little after Bach's time, though.
Does "Lutheran Church, Amsterdam" suffice to identify
it uniquely?
The description says "Lutheran Church, The Hague". Den Haag is not
Amsterdam. I remember having been in the "Lutherse kerk" in Den Haag
once, also when there was a concert, by a choir.
Sigh. Does "Lutheran Church, the Hague" suffice to identify it uniquely?"
I think so, yes.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I looked at it once, scrolled back up to the video, and came back
to this tab.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherse_Kerk_(Utrecht)>
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherse_kerk_(Den_Haag)>
"The one"? Only one Lutheran church in a good-sized city?
Yes. Why would there be more? The suggestion list in Wikipedia
suggests there are only about 10 in the whole country. Luteranism is a
tiny minority branch within the whole of the (now largely united)
Protestant churches in the Netherlands.

Well, no, more buildings than ten:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelisch-Lutherse_Kerk
Under "Kerkgebouwen" (Church buildings).
Amsterdam had three, but only one is still used as a church.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I haven't seen an organist sway around like that since
Virgil Fox.
I happen to know him personally. He used to live in the same town as
me, even the same street. Not any more, though, we both moved.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I've left the tab open to listen till the end but
come back here to finish up AUE. From your description
I expected mystical visuals like the first movement of
*Fantasia*. (I haven't watched the reissue with Stokowski's
orchestra replaced by some modern guy.)
Peter T. Daniels
2022-01-22 20:01:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 10:56:53 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 09:24:18 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
[Harmsen's screwing with the attributions repaired]
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
http://youtu.be/zzBXZ__LN_M
What a fine instrument! A little after Bach's time, though.
Does "Lutheran Church, Amsterdam" suffice to identify
it uniquely?
The description says "Lutheran Church, The Hague". Den Haag is not
Amsterdam. I remember having been in the "Lutherse kerk" in Den Haag
once, also when there was a concert, by a choir.
Sigh. Does "Lutheran Church, the Hague" suffice to identify it uniquely?"
I think so, yes.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I looked at it once, scrolled back up to the video, and came back
to this tab.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherse_Kerk_(Utrecht)>
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherse_kerk_(Den_Haag)>
I'm not sure Google Translate did a great job on the Dutch. It told me
that the current -- quite ugly -- building is on the site of a "clandestine"
church in the early 17th century, and they bought land all around it
to build the current building on. Those two things don't seem to go
together.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"The one"? Only one Lutheran church in a good-sized city?
Yes. Why would there be more? The suggestion list in Wikipedia
suggests there are only about 10 in the whole country. Luteranism is a
tiny minority branch within the whole of the (now largely united)
Protestant churches in the Netherlands.
That sounds very strange Over Here. We would assume that
most churches would be Lutheran; but it sounds like this
"largely united" Protestant religion has modernized and abandoned
the name of the founder to some reactionary group.

It works the other way Over Here -- the breakaway Catholic
parishes that insist on using Latin, for instance, are called
"Old Catholic."
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelisch-Lutherse_Kerk
Under "Kerkgebouwen" (Church buildings).
Amsterdam had three, but only one is still used as a church.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I haven't seen an organist sway around like that since
Virgil Fox.
I happen to know him personally. He used to live in the same town as
me, even the same street. Not any more, though, we both moved.
Ruud Harmsen
2022-01-23 05:24:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 12:01:28 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I'm not sure Google Translate did a great job on the Dutch. It told me
that the current -- quite ugly -- building is on the site of a "clandestine"
church in the early 17th century, and they bought land all around it
to build the current building on. Those two things don't seem to go
together.
Well translated, a "Schuilkerk", literally a "Hiding Church".

The point is that the later so-called 80-year war, 1568-1648, of the
emerging Dutch nation against the Spanish, under the leadership of
William of Orange (a forefather of our present King), allegedly was
about freedom of religion. But when finally they had won, the
Catholics were no longer allowed to celebrate their masses. And in the
process, the Protestants of the wrong type, the Remonstrants, had been
violently oppressed, which was one of the factors in the execution by
the sword of Willem van Oldenbarneveldt, and the incarceration of the
eminent scholar Hugo de Groot (Grotius, internationally and in Latin).

The Catholics did anyway, but couldn't have churches, so they used
buildings that looked like something else, were something else, but
somewhere in the back had some space where mass was celebrated.

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuilkerk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_church
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Peter Moylan
2022-01-23 05:41:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
The point is that the later so-called 80-year war, 1568-1648, of the
emerging Dutch nation against the Spanish, under the leadership of
William of Orange (a forefather of our present King), allegedly was
about freedom of religion. But when finally they had won, the
Catholics were no longer allowed to celebrate their masses.
Back then, "freedom of religion" really meant freedom of one particular
religion. In some places it probably still does.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter T. Daniels
2022-01-23 16:19:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 12:01:28 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I'm not sure Google Translate did a great job on the Dutch. It told me
that the current -- quite ugly -- building is on the site of a "clandestine"
church in the early 17th century, and they bought land all around it
to build the current building on. Those two things don't seem to go
together.
Well translated, a "Schuilkerk", literally a "Hiding Church".
The point is that the later so-called 80-year war, 1568-1648, of the
emerging Dutch nation against the Spanish, under the leadership of
William of Orange (a forefather of our present King), allegedly was
about freedom of religion. But when finally they had won, the
Catholics were no longer allowed to celebrate their masses. And in the
process, the Protestants of the wrong type, the Remonstrants, had been
violently oppressed, which was one of the factors in the execution by
the sword of Willem van Oldenbarneveldt, and the incarceration of the
eminent scholar Hugo de Groot (Grotius, internationally and in Latin).
The Catholics did anyway, but couldn't have churches, so they used
buildings that looked like something else, were something else, but
somewhere in the back had some space where mass was celebrated.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuilkerk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_church
So the article left out the minor point that when the church was
"clandestine," it was Catholic, but it was Lutherans who bought
up the land and replaced the original one?
Ruud Harmsen
2022-01-23 05:30:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 12:01:28 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That sounds very strange Over Here. We would assume that
most churches would be Lutheran; but it sounds like this
"largely united" Protestant religion has modernized and abandoned
the name of the founder to some reactionary group.
We are Calvinists here (nominally, me too, but now a convinced
atheist, perhaps also Animist:
https://rudhar.com/religion/soantaia.htm ), which split into something
like 70 (or 170?) different churches, then recently was united, more
or less.

PKN = Protestantse Kerk in Nederland.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantse_Kerk_in_Nederland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Church_in_the_Netherlands

"the vast majority of the Dutch Reformed Church, the vast majority of
the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands"

In Dutch that is "Nederlands Hervormde Kerk" (I was baptized in one),
and "Gereformeerde Kerk". Same meaning, different words, hervormen,
reformeren.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2022-01-23 05:36:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 12:01:28 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It works the other way Over Here -- the breakaway Catholic
parishes that insist on using Latin, for instance, are called
"Old Catholic."
We have an Oud Katholieke Kerk here too:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oudkatholieke_Kerk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church

More about the many splits and mergers and more splits among the
Protestants:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Reformed_Church#Further_Reformation
Look and Shiver, kijk en huiver:
Loading Image...

The idea that people could agree and unite is completely alien to us
Dutch. In essence every individual has their own personal belief, and
nearly also, church.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2022-01-23 05:39:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
The idea that people could agree and unite is completely alien to us
Dutch. In essence every individual has their own personal belief, and
nearly also, church.
We also have like 17 different political parties in Parliament. Or was
it 19, or 20, after yet some other rows and splits?

When a party has only one seat left, the tradition is to ironically,
or half seriously, call it "Groep <person's last name>".
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Dingbat
2022-01-22 23:09:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
http://youtu.be/zzBXZ__LN_M
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 09:24:18 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
What a fine instrument! A little after Bach's time, though.
Does "Lutheran Church, Amsterdam" suffice to identify
it uniquely?
The description says "Lutheran Church, The Hague". Den Haag is not
Amsterdam. I remember having been in the "Lutherse kerk" in Den Haag
once, also when there was a concert, by a choir.
They are both in Randstad. Does Randstad appear in any address or
does any business state itself as located there? I know of one with
that name, the Randstad Human Resources Company.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherse_Kerk_(Utrecht)>
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherse_kerk_(Den_Haag)>
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I haven't seen an organist sway around like that since
Virgil Fox.
I happen to know him personally. He used to live in the same town as
me, even the same street. Not any more, though, we both moved.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I've left the tab open to listen till the end but
come back here to finish up AUE. From your description
I expected mystical visuals like the first movement of
*Fantasia*. (I haven't watched the reissue with Stokowski's
orchestra replaced by some modern guy.)
Ruud Harmsen
2022-01-23 05:46:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 15:09:48 -0800 (PST): Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
http://youtu.be/zzBXZ__LN_M
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 09:24:18 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
What a fine instrument! A little after Bach's time, though.
Does "Lutheran Church, Amsterdam" suffice to identify
it uniquely?
The description says "Lutheran Church, The Hague". Den Haag is not
Amsterdam. I remember having been in the "Lutherse kerk" in Den Haag
once, also when there was a concert, by a choir.
They are both in Randstad. Does Randstad appear in any address or
does any business state itself as located there?
Randstad literally means "border city" or "city rim" or something like
that. The name derives from "de vier grote steden", the four large
cities, Rotterdam, The Hague, Amsterdam and Utrecht, each with their
agglomerations, being situated around "het Groene Hart", the green
heart. (The start of that area, largely consisting or meadows and some
smaller cities, is withing walking distance from my home.) They try to
keep that area green and not completely fill it up with houses and
offices.

The Randstad contains a large proportion of the population of the
Netherlands, but it is relatively small in comparison with the country
as a whole.
Post by Dingbat
I know of one with
that name, the Randstad Human Resources Company.
Yes, Randstad Uitzendbureau, now active internationally. They named
themself after the region.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Dingbat
2022-01-23 07:04:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 15:09:48 -0800 (PST): Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
http://youtu.be/zzBXZ__LN_M
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 09:24:18 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
What a fine instrument! A little after Bach's time, though.
Does "Lutheran Church, Amsterdam" suffice to identify
it uniquely?
The description says "Lutheran Church, The Hague". Den Haag is not
Amsterdam. I remember having been in the "Lutherse kerk" in Den Haag
once, also when there was a concert, by a choir.
They are both in Randstad. Does Randstad appear in any address or
does any business state itself as located there?
Randstad literally means "border city" or "city rim" or something like
that. The name derives from "de vier grote steden", the four large
cities, Rotterdam, The Hague, Amsterdam and Utrecht, each with their
agglomerations, being situated around "het Groene Hart", the green
heart. (The start of that area, largely consisting or meadows and some
smaller cities, is withing walking distance from my home.) They try to
keep that area green and not completely fill it up with houses and
offices.
The Randstad contains a large proportion of the population of the
Netherlands, but it is relatively small in comparison with the country
as a whole.
Post by Dingbat
I know of one with
that name, the Randstad Human Resources Company.
Yes, Randstad Uitzendbureau, now active internationally. They named
themself after the region.
--
Back to the question:
Does any business say "We are in Randstad" or "We serve Randstad"?
Ruud Harmsen
2022-01-23 08:33:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 23:04:29 -0800 (PST): Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Does any business say "We are in Randstad" or "We serve Randstad"?
We zitten in de Randstad, we hebben diverse vestigingen in de
Randstad, we bedienen de Randstad.

You could say that, but it is rather unlikely, because a company big
enough to have offices, shops, whatever, in several cities of the
Randstad (if there's just one, Randstad is too vague, and they'd say
which one of the cities they're in), probably also has them in Breda,
Den Bosch (= ’s Hertogenbosch) and Eindhoven (all three in
Noord-Brabant), Roermond and Maastricht (Limburg), Arnhem and Nijmegen
(Gelderland), Groningen, etc. etc.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Peter T. Daniels
2022-01-23 16:35:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 22 Jan 2022 23:04:29 -0800 (PST): Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Does any business say "We are in Randstad" or "We serve Randstad"?
We zitten in de Randstad, we hebben diverse vestigingen in de
Randstad, we bedienen de Randstad.
You could say that, but it is rather unlikely, because a company big
enough to have offices, shops, whatever, in several cities of the
Randstad (if there's just one, Randstad is too vague, and they'd say
which one of the cities they're in), probably also has them in Breda,
Den Bosch (= ’s Hertogenbosch) and Eindhoven (all three in
Noord-Brabant), Roermond and Maastricht (Limburg), Arnhem and Nijmegen
(Gelderland), Groningen, etc. etc.
"Walmart doesn't put stores in cities, only in suburbs." Note the plural.

Never "I'm going to Walmart in the suburb this afternoon."
CDB
2022-01-23 13:40:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
JSB's Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor has given me repeated
psychedelic experiences, even before you told me that the repeated notes
are a feature of the form. Thinking of them as a ground bass did not
impair my enjoyment.
Also, I've read that they're supposed to be in 3/4 time.
Can you really call the Bach one a ground bass, when in the
middle portions the theme migrates up to the top register
and back down again?
It's also, incidentally, one of the few where the fugue relates
in more than just key to what it follows -- the d minor t & f is
another. A few in the WTC collection do.
Perhaps the greatest monument of solo piano music of the
20th century is Stefan Wolpe's Passacaglia. I first heard it in
2000 when Juilliard offered a free series called Piano Century,
with 10 recitals, each featuring works written in one of the
decades (in order, of course). (I didn't hear about it until the
fourth one, the 1930s.) No composer was represented by
more than one work, and no Juilliard piano student got to
play more than one work.
(Note to lar3: I went to each one, from 1930s to 1990s, out
of curiosity, not expecting to like much, because I don't particularly
care for solo piano music, but found things to like from every decade.)
The Wolpe just blew me away. Not only could the theme be
followed through all the variations, but it's written in (what
seems to be) strict Schoenbergian 12-tone style. I acquired
as many of the (surprisingly many) recordings as I could,
which brought along with them -- it's about 12 minutes -- other
works of his, or of contemporaries, and learned a bit of his
biography. As a refugee in Palestine he turned from Modern
to folk-music influences (sort of like Bartok) and then moved
to New York for a while, where he fit in with the avant-garde
community. (His twelve-tone phase didn't last long.)
Thank you. I have copied it to notepad for later listening.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If you're curious about that sort of thing, do give a listen
to those two short things: Schoenberg's Survivor from
Warsaw and Wolpe's Passacaglia. (The oft-recommended
Berg Violin Concerto doesn't do anything for me.)
Post by CDB
Try listening to this, Lar, and think of night and the approaching
storm. Try to decide when I begin flying in the dark, with the cold
rain driving through my body like Saint Teresa's arrows, and the
crashing thunder the same as the mountains below me, and the clouds lit
by fearful hidden lightnings. Can't do that on a Wurlitzer.
http://youtu.be/zzBXZ__LN_M
What a fine instrument! A little after Bach's time, though.
Does "Lutheran Church, Amsterdam" suffice to identify
it uniquely?
I haven't seen an organist sway around like that since
Virgil Fox. I've left the tab open to listen till the end but
come back here to finish up AUE. From your description
I expected mystical visuals like the first movement of
*Fantasia*. (I haven't watched the reissue with Stokowski's
orchestra replaced by some modern guy.)
The experience requires some creative visualisation.

I searched through what was available on YT until I found a performance
I liked. I even rejected a synthesiser version; Larry might have liked
it better, but i didn't.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Another JSB wonder is the g minor Fantasy and Fugue. The
opening line is spectacular (I think maybe a cello could play
it all the way from top to bottom) -- but in the middle of the
Fantasy is a chordal passage where he just winds straight through
all twelve keys (see previous discussion), one chord each, making
use of diminished sevenths in a way that wouldn't be approached
until Beethoven turned it into a cliché. (Probably his contemporaries
would say, Oh, he's just showing off. That's our Seb!)
Madhu
2022-01-23 03:25:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
*For instance, I find his aversion to all organ music incomprehensible.
JSB's Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor has given me repeated
psychedelic experiences, even before you told me that the repeated notes
are a feature of the form. Thinking of them as a ground bass did not
impair my enjoyment.
I think it is possible for someone to despise music which moves them
profoundly. it may be true of other forms of art too when the effect is
profound but not understandable and therefore not welcome. if a piece is
really bring tears to the eyes, and i don't want my eyes wet.

[that said, i could listen and be dazzled by jazz in my youth, but now
it only gives me a headache]
Ruud Harmsen
2022-01-23 05:55:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Madhu
I think it is possible for someone to despise music which moves them
profoundly. /
Third String Quartett, Béla Bartók. It hurts, but I love it.

I may write about it one day. In Interlingua, so sadly you guys won't
be able to read it, although GT can now more or less translate it, if
you pretend it is Corsican, Haitian or Maltese. No kidding:
https://rudhar.com/musica/tusurris/hardread.htm
Post by Madhu
/ it may be true of other forms of art too when the effect is
profound but not understandable and therefore not welcome. if a piece is
really bring tears to the eyes, and i don't want my eyes wet.
Not to often.
Post by Madhu
[that said, i could listen and be dazzled by jazz in my youth, but now
it only gives me a headache]
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2022-01-23 06:00:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Not to often.
Not too often. Cry, make mistakes, you name it.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Commander Kinsey
2022-01-22 20:04:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Is it really still unsafe for you-lot (I speak advisedly) to go and hold
these technical discussions in sci.lang?
Was it really necessary to copy the entire thing?
"unsafe"?
He once multiposted to sci.lang and AUE.
It might be educational for lar3 to see what linguistics (or a
tiny corner of it) actually is. Except we now know that he is
unwilling to undergo any new experiences at all.
Except, apparently, changing his nym almost as often as
"Commander Kinsey" to evade the "killfiles" of those he
has disgusted with his closed-mindedness and ignorance.
Fuck off.
Peter T. Daniels
2022-01-22 14:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
I was mentioning just quality, not length, in that statement, but to Indians'
ears, UK English /A./ has allophones of [A.] and [A.:], since English /A./ is
transcribed into Hindi as 2 vowels differing in length.
The <o> in <Consitution> is transcribed as long.
The <o> in <Boss> is transcribed as short.
I've seen both words spelled in Hindi.
Those two <o>s are pronounced as different phonemes.
LOT and CLOTH respectively.
Devanagari doesn't have two lengths of <o>, so what Hindi
transcriptions are you talking about?
Two lengths of [ɒ]
कौ [kɒː] starts Constitution
बॉ [bɒ] starts Boss
In English, those are not /a/s -- see how Wells indicated them
with Os in lot and cloth.
In Hindi, कौ is either [kɒː] or [kɐʊ] depending on context.
Thereby, in English spoken by Hindi speakers, Constitution
starts with [kɒː]. How do Anglophones pronounce it?
Well, Indians heard them pronouncing it as [kɒː]; that's
why it's transcribed that way in Hindi. It might be that Con
has primary stress in English, with Indians hearing the stress
as length, being that one manifestation of English stress is
increased length.
The main stress is on -TU-, secondary stress on con-.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
LOT in _American_, of course, has
merged with /a/, and CLOTH has [ɔ] not [ɒ].
How does Wells hear CLOTH? He uses /ɔ/ now but at one time,
he used ɒ, I forget whether as a phoneme or phone. He also mentioned
that when he made the change from ɒ to ɔ, he considered adding
a diacritic to /ɔ/ to indicate that it is [ɔ:] before r but [ɒ:] elsewhere.
That it sounds like [ɒ:] to the UK English ear is obviously why he
originally chose ɒ. His change to /ɔ/ was evidently driven by his
(re)analysis that [ɔ:] and [ɒ:] are one phoneme in US English. Correct
me if I misremember what he has written on the subject. Or show
something he has written, to confirm your suggestion that he finds
/ɔ/ in CLOTH to be articulated as [ɔ:] and not [ɒ:].
Sigh. The point of his analysis is to identify _all_ the phonemic
contrasts in _any_ (major) dialect of English. Naturally most of
his attention goes to RP (as it was in 1982), with the rest of the
world in the 3rd vol., but there are notes on GenAm in the first
two. Therefore Wells does not "hear" or "find" any specific
pronunciation for each of the 24 classes.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That long-a-with-chandra is non-standard in Hindi.
"There are two more vowels in Marathi as well as Konkani, ॲ and ऑ,
that respectively represent [æ], similar to the RP English pronunciation
of ⟨a⟩ in ‘act’, and [ɒ], similar to the RP pronunciation of ⟨o⟩ in ‘cot’.
These vowels are sometimes used in Hindi too, as in डॉलर dôlar,
"dollar". IAST transliteration is not defined. In ISO 15919, the
transliteration is ê and ô, respectively.
1) Marathi's way of writing CAT is never used in Hindi except
Please read what it says. Not that. It's poorly written, and should
probably say "these matras are sometimes used," not "these
vowels are sometimes used." The chandra one is used for
whatever the Hindi pronunciation of unassimilated "dollar" is.
Post by Dingbat
possibly in some dictionary's pronunciation key. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>,
since NEVER is not SOMETIMES.
2) Your "long-a-with-chandra" is as standard in Hindi as in Marathi for
transcribing foreign words and names, in the Hindi texts I've seen. So,
the Wikip is wrong to say that it is used less in Hindi than in Marathi.
Hindi has nativized loanwords like BOX altered to what sounds like
Bucks, that might not be so altered in Marathi. But a name Bochs
would always be written the same way as in Marathi. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>, since
ALWAYS is not SOMETIMES.
In other words, you can sometimes find examples in unassimilated
loanwords and proper names. That's like saying /x/ is an English
phoneme because of Bach.
Not all loanwords are unassimilated.
That's why I said "unassimilated loanwords." If "Bach" is assimilated,
it is identical to "bock" (a kind of beer), and many people do say it
that way.
Post by Dingbat
Many loanwords are assimilated
but not nativised
The two word say the same thing. "You can't have one without the other."
Post by Dingbat
like BOX was. I wouldn't be surprised if BOX too has
started being written with its English pronunciation rather than its
nativised Hindi pronunciation
Loanwords do not un-assimilate. Once they are assimilated, they
are indistinguishable from native vocabulary. If a Hindi-speaker
learns the English word "box," they will say, "Oh, we have a word
that sounds something like that that means something similar. I'll
have to be careful not to confuse them." (Or their teacher pointed
that out.)
Post by Dingbat
that sounds like Bucks. Malayalam
has the curious diglossic phenomenon of having nativised spelling of
loanwords that are not pronunced as spelled but pronounced with
with something approaching their foreign pronunciation except in the
lowest registers.
That might be a phenomenon among polyglots, of which there must
be a lot in India. ("Something approaching" would be a giveaway.)
Dingbat
2022-01-22 23:29:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
I was mentioning just quality, not length, in that statement, but to Indians'
ears, UK English /A./ has allophones of [A.] and [A.:], since English /A./ is
transcribed into Hindi as 2 vowels differing in length.
The <o> in <Consitution> is transcribed as long.
The <o> in <Boss> is transcribed as short.
I've seen both words spelled in Hindi.
Those two <o>s are pronounced as different phonemes.
LOT and CLOTH respectively.
Devanagari doesn't have two lengths of <o>, so what Hindi
transcriptions are you talking about?
Two lengths of [ɒ]
कौ [kɒː] starts Constitution
बॉ [bɒ] starts Boss
In English, those are not /a/s -- see how Wells indicated them
with Os in lot and cloth.
In Hindi, कौ is either [kɒː] or [kɐʊ] depending on context.
Thereby, in English spoken by Hindi speakers, Constitution
starts with [kɒː]. How do Anglophones pronounce it?
Well, Indians heard them pronouncing it as [kɒː]; that's
why it's transcribed that way in Hindi. It might be that Con
has primary stress in English, with Indians hearing the stress
as length, being that one manifestation of English stress is
increased length.
The main stress is on -TU-, secondary stress on con-.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
LOT in _American_, of course, has
merged with /a/, and CLOTH has [ɔ] not [ɒ].
How does Wells hear CLOTH? He uses /ɔ/ now but at one time,
he used ɒ, I forget whether as a phoneme or phone. He also mentioned
that when he made the change from ɒ to ɔ, he considered adding
a diacritic to /ɔ/ to indicate that it is [ɔ:] before r but [ɒ:] elsewhere.
That it sounds like [ɒ:] to the UK English ear is obviously why he
originally chose ɒ. His change to /ɔ/ was evidently driven by his
(re)analysis that [ɔ:] and [ɒ:] are one phoneme in US English. Correct
me if I misremember what he has written on the subject. Or show
something he has written, to confirm your suggestion that he finds
/ɔ/ in CLOTH to be articulated as [ɔ:] and not [ɒ:].
Sigh. The point of his analysis is to identify _all_ the phonemic
contrasts in _any_ (major) dialect of English. Naturally most of
his attention goes to RP (as it was in 1982), with the rest of the
world in the 3rd vol., but there are notes on GenAm in the first
two. Therefore Wells does not "hear" or "find" any specific
pronunciation for each of the 24 classes.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That long-a-with-chandra is non-standard in Hindi.
"There are two more vowels in Marathi as well as Konkani, ॲ and ऑ,
that respectively represent [æ], similar to the RP English pronunciation
of ⟨a⟩ in ‘act’, and [ɒ], similar to the RP pronunciation of ⟨o⟩ in ‘cot’.
These vowels are sometimes used in Hindi too, as in डॉलर dôlar,
"dollar". IAST transliteration is not defined. In ISO 15919, the
transliteration is ê and ô, respectively.
1) Marathi's way of writing CAT is never used in Hindi except
Please read what it says. Not that. It's poorly written, and should
probably say "these matras are sometimes used," not "these
vowels are sometimes used." The chandra one is used for
whatever the Hindi pronunciation of unassimilated "dollar" is.
Post by Dingbat
possibly in some dictionary's pronunciation key. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>,
since NEVER is not SOMETIMES.
2) Your "long-a-with-chandra" is as standard in Hindi as in Marathi for
transcribing foreign words and names, in the Hindi texts I've seen. So,
the Wikip is wrong to say that it is used less in Hindi than in Marathi.
Hindi has nativized loanwords like BOX altered to what sounds like
Bucks, that might not be so altered in Marathi. But a name Bochs
would always be written the same way as in Marathi. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>, since
ALWAYS is not SOMETIMES.
In other words, you can sometimes find examples in unassimilated
loanwords and proper names. That's like saying /x/ is an English
phoneme because of Bach.
Not all loanwords are unassimilated.
That's why I said "unassimilated loanwords." If "Bach" is assimilated,
it is identical to "bock" (a kind of beer), and many people do say it
that way.
Yet, I hear La Chaim pronounced with a fricative by some Americans
who pronounce Bach as your bock.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Many loanwords are assimilated
but not nativised
The two word say the same thing. "You can't have one without the other."
Post by Dingbat
like BOX was. I wouldn't be surprised if BOX too has
started being written with its English pronunciation rather than its
nativised Hindi pronunciation
Loanwords do not un-assimilate. Once they are assimilated, they
are indistinguishable from native vocabulary.
They get unassimilated by nativized loanwords being replaced.
Surgeon with a Sottish style trill is heard less and less in Malayalam
as younger speakers ignore its Malayalam spelling and pronounce
it the English way even though the English should be able to
comprehend it just as well as its Glaswegian pronunciation.
That's one reason why I suspect that Hindi "Bucks" from English
BOX might be getting replaced with something that sounds more
like English BOX, by younger Hindi speakers.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If a Hindi-speaker
learns the English word "box," they will say, "Oh, we have a word
that sounds something like that that means something similar. I'll
have to be careful not to confuse them." (Or their teacher pointed
that out.)
Post by Dingbat
that sounds like Bucks. Malayalam
has the curious diglossic phenomenon of having nativised spelling of
loanwords that are not pronunced as spelled but pronounced with
with something approaching their foreign pronunciation except in the
lowest registers.
That might be a phenomenon among polyglots, of which there must
be a lot in India. ("Something approaching" would be a giveaway.)
Peter T. Daniels
2022-01-23 00:29:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That's why I said "unassimilated loanwords." If "Bach" is assimilated,
it is identical to "bock" (a kind of beer), and many people do say it
that way.
Yet, I hear La Chaim pronounced with a fricative by some Americans
who pronounce Bach as your bock.
I don't think anyone saying "l'chaim" thinks they're saying an English word
Dingbat
2022-01-23 00:58:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That's why I said "unassimilated loanwords." If "Bach" is assimilated,
it is identical to "bock" (a kind of beer), and many people do say it
that way.
Yet, I hear La Chaim pronounced with a fricative by some Americans
who pronounce Bach as your bock.
I don't think anyone saying "l'chaim" thinks they're saying an English word
... whereas they think Bach is an English name? Seems unlikely.
Peter T. Daniels
2022-01-23 02:28:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That's why I said "unassimilated loanwords." If "Bach" is assimilated,
it is identical to "bock" (a kind of beer), and many people do say it
that way.
Yet, I hear La Chaim pronounced with a fricative by some Americans
who pronounce Bach as your bock.
I don't think anyone saying "l'chaim" thinks they're saying an English word
... whereas they think Bach is an English name? Seems unlikely.
It's a German name.
Peter Moylan
2022-01-23 05:32:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That's why I said "unassimilated loanwords." If "Bach" is
assimilated, it is identical to "bock" (a kind of beer), and many
people do say it that way.
Yet, I hear La Chaim pronounced with a fricative by some Americans
who pronounce Bach as your bock.
I don't think anyone saying "l'chaim" thinks they're saying an
English word
When I once said "l'chaim" in front of an Israeli friend, using an [x],
he looked puzzled and asked "Do you mean l'haim?", using a consonant
identical to an English H.

Does Hebrew have a particularly light fricative for ch? I think I've
noticed that in the name Chana. There, it's clearly further forward than
the sound in Bach.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Ruud Harmsen
2022-01-23 05:50:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sun, 23 Jan 2022 16:32:29 +1100: Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That's why I said "unassimilated loanwords." If "Bach" is
assimilated, it is identical to "bock" (a kind of beer), and many
people do say it that way.
Yet, I hear La Chaim pronounced with a fricative by some Americans
who pronounce Bach as your bock.
I don't think anyone saying "l'chaim" thinks they're saying an English word
When I once said "l'chaim" in front of an Israeli friend, using an [x],
he looked puzzled and asked "Do you mean l'haim?", using a consonant
identical to an English H.
Does Hebrew have a particularly light fricative for ch?
No. Several of them that merged, actually:
https://rudhar.com/fonetics/gurgital/gurgitia.htm . They also have a
"light h", but not in this word.

Perhaps you spokesperson was Anglophone and didn't properly speak
Hebrew, or lost connexion phonetically
Post by Peter Moylan
I think I've
noticed that in the name Chana. There, it's clearly further forward than
the sound in Bach.
Much further back, in more genuine varieties.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Peter Moylan
2022-01-23 11:07:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sun, 23 Jan 2022 16:32:29 +1100: Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That's why I said "unassimilated loanwords." If "Bach" is
assimilated, it is identical to "bock" (a kind of beer), and many
people do say it that way.
Yet, I hear La Chaim pronounced with a fricative by some Americans
who pronounce Bach as your bock.
I don't think anyone saying "l'chaim" thinks they're saying an English word
When I once said "l'chaim" in front of an Israeli friend, using an [x],
he looked puzzled and asked "Do you mean l'haim?", using a consonant
identical to an English H.
Does Hebrew have a particularly light fricative for ch?
https://rudhar.com/fonetics/gurgital/gurgitia.htm . They also have a
"light h", but not in this word.
Thanks. Then it could be a fault of my hearing.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Perhaps you spokesperson was Anglophone and didn't properly speak
Hebrew, or lost connexion phonetically
As far as I know he was born in Israel, although he has a
German-sounding name.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Peter Moylan
I think I've
noticed that in the name Chana. There, it's clearly further forward than
the sound in Bach.
Much further back, in more genuine varieties.
My apologies; on reflection, that makes more sense to me. Almost as far
back as [h], in fact.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Dingbat
2022-01-23 11:28:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sun, 23 Jan 2022 16:32:29 +1100: Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That's why I said "unassimilated loanwords." If "Bach" is
assimilated, it is identical to "bock" (a kind of beer), and many
people do say it that way.
Yet, I hear La Chaim pronounced with a fricative by some Americans
who pronounce Bach as your bock.
I don't think anyone saying "l'chaim" thinks they're saying an English word
When I once said "l'chaim" in front of an Israeli friend, using an [x],
he looked puzzled and asked "Do you mean l'haim?", using a consonant
identical to an English H.
As far as I know he was born in Israel, although he has a
German-sounding name.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Peter Moylan
I think I've
noticed that in the name Chana. There, it's clearly further forward than
the sound in Bach.
Much further back, in more genuine varieties.
My apologies; on reflection, that makes more sense to me. Almost as far
back as [h], in fact.
As far as I remember the IPA chart, pharyngeal and epiglottal are the articulations
further back than German "ach" and further back than epiglottal is the
the backmost fricative, glottal [h]. FYI, it can be voiced; the Dutch voice their
backmost fricative.
Peter T. Daniels
2022-01-23 16:31:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sun, 23 Jan 2022 16:32:29 +1100: Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That's why I said "unassimilated loanwords." If "Bach" is
assimilated, it is identical to "bock" (a kind of beer), and many
people do say it that way.
Yet, I hear La Chaim pronounced with a fricative by some Americans
who pronounce Bach as your bock.
I don't think anyone saying "l'chaim" thinks they're saying an English word
When I once said "l'chaim" in front of an Israeli friend, using an [x],
he looked puzzled and asked "Do you mean l'haim?", using a consonant
identical to an English H.
Does Hebrew have a particularly light fricative for ch?
https://rudhar.com/fonetics/gurgital/gurgitia.htm . They also have a
"light h", but not in this word.
I had to go to your cockamamie page to find out what the heck
you're talking about, but of course it's in your gibberish.

Biblical Hebrew has Chet (transliterated with h-underdot), He
(same as English h), and [x], the post-vocalic allophone of /k/.

Israeli Hebrew has merged Chet with [x] as /x/. Unless in some
dialect Chet has merged with He, the fellow who was puzzled
by "l'chaim" is an anomaly.

_Proto-Semitic_ had a phoneme *x (surviving in Arabic), but
Hebrew never had that -- it merged with Chet throughout
Northwest Semitic.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Perhaps you spokesperson was Anglophone and didn't properly speak
Hebrew, or lost connexion phonetically
Post by Peter Moylan
I think I've
noticed that in the name Chana. There, it's clearly further forward than
the sound in Bach.
Is Israeli? Allophonic. (In English it's just Hannah.)
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Much further back, in more genuine varieties.
?
Jerry Friedman
2022-01-23 15:07:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That's why I said "unassimilated loanwords." If "Bach" is
assimilated, it is identical to "bock" (a kind of beer), and many
people do say it that way.
Yet, I hear La Chaim pronounced with a fricative by some Americans
who pronounce Bach as your bock.
I don't think anyone saying "l'chaim" thinks they're saying an English word
When I once said "l'chaim" in front of an Israeli friend, using an [x],
he looked puzzled and asked "Do you mean l'haim?", using a consonant
identical to an English H.
Does Hebrew have a particularly light fricative for ch? I think I've
noticed that in the name Chana. There, it's clearly further forward than
the sound in Bach.
I was brought up with a uvular fricative for "ch" in Hebrew, and I never
noticed that my Israeli teachers were saying anything different, back in
the '70s.

Modern Hebrew definitely has a distinction between [x] and [h].
--
Jerry Friedman
Dingbat
2022-01-23 08:39:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That long-a-with-chandra is non-standard in Hindi.
"There are two more vowels in Marathi as well as Konkani, ॲ and ऑ,
that respectively represent [æ], similar to the RP English pronunciation
of ⟨a⟩ in ‘act’, and [ɒ], similar to the RP pronunciation of ⟨o⟩ in ‘cot’.
These vowels are sometimes used in Hindi too, as in डॉलर dôlar,
"dollar". IAST transliteration is not defined. In ISO 15919, the
transliteration is ê and ô, respectively.
1) Marathi's way of writing CAT is never used in Hindi except
Please read what it says. Not that. It's poorly written, and should
probably say "these matras are sometimes used," not "these
vowels are sometimes used." The chandra one is used for
whatever the Hindi pronunciation of unassimilated "dollar" is.
Post by Dingbat
possibly in some dictionary's pronunciation key. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>,
since NEVER is not SOMETIMES.
2) Your "long-a-with-chandra" is as standard in Hindi as in Marathi for
transcribing foreign words and names, in the Hindi texts I've seen. So,
the Wikip is wrong to say that it is used less in Hindi than in Marathi.
Hindi has nativized loanwords like BOX altered to what sounds like
Bucks, that might not be so altered in Marathi. But a name Bochs
would always be written the same way as in Marathi. The Wikip is
wrong to say <<these vowels are sometimes used in Hindi>>, since
ALWAYS is not SOMETIMES.
In other words, you can sometimes find examples in unassimilated
loanwords and proper names. That's like saying /x/ is an English
phoneme because of Bach.
I said nothing at all about phonemes. I used [], not //. I don't find
phonemic transcription useful except for perhaps a liturgical
language which no longer borrows anything.

My Malayalam has words from 11 languages that come to mind:
Malayalam, Tamil, Sanskrit, Hindi
Greek, Portuguese, English, Latin, French
Syriac (Aramaic), Arabic
More lanugages, but borrowings from some, like Hebrew and Dutch,
are rarer and nativized.

Could your favorite Malyalam savant's phonemic inventory be used
to distinguish between kalam (pot, from Tamil) and qalam
(calligraphic pen, from Arabic)? If not, why should I find it useful?
Peter T. Daniels
2022-01-23 16:39:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Could your favorite Malyalam savant's phonemic inventory be used
to distinguish between kalam (pot, from Tamil) and qalam
(calligraphic pen, from Arabic)? If not, why should I find it useful?
How should I know? Do they sound the same, or not? If you call
to your kid "Bring me a _____," and they didn't know what you were
doing, would they have to ask "your cooking _____ or your writing
_____?"?

S K
2022-01-21 18:42:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
I was mentioning just quality, not length, in that statement, but to Indians'
ears, UK English /A./ has allophones of [A.] and [A.:], since English /A./ is
transcribed into Hindi as 2 vowels differing in length.
The <o> in <Consitution> is transcribed as long.
The <o> in <Boss> is transcribed as short.
I've seen both words spelled in Hindi.
Those two <o>s are pronounced as different phonemes.
LOT and CLOTH respectively.
Devanagari doesn't have two lengths of <o>, so what Hindi
transcriptions are you talking about?
Two lengths of [ɒ]
कौ [kɒː] starts Constitution
बॉ [bɒ] starts Boss
mallu motherfucker lying to goras facilely and the newsgroup curse who knows "everything" is contributing his arrant lies also.

fuck you mallu.
Post by Dingbat
It has two lengths of [o] too, only the long of which is used for native Hindi words.
Look up the Unicode Devanagari code chart for what the short one looks like.
The short could be used in dictionary pronunciation descriptions of foreign words;
I haven't seen it in texts for public consumption.
Kashmiri has short and long [e] but when written in Devanagari, the short one is
written as the long one plus a diacritic; the short [e] matra provided by Unicode
Devanagari is not used.
Ruud Harmsen
2022-01-21 19:52:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Fri, 21 Jan 2022 08:13:13 -0800 (PST): Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
I was mentioning just quality, not length, in that statement, but to Indians'
ears, UK English /A./ has allophones of [A.] and [A.:], since English /A./ is
transcribed into Hindi as 2 vowels differing in length.
The <o> in <Consitution> is transcribed as long.
The <o> in <Boss> is transcribed as short.
I've seen both words spelled in Hindi.
Those two <o>s are pronounced as different phonemes.
LOT and CLOTH respectively.
Devanagari doesn't have two lengths of <o>, so what Hindi
transcriptions are you talking about?
Two lengths of [?]
?? [k??] starts Constitution
?? [b?] starts Boss
It has two lengths of [o] too, only the long of which is used for native Hindi words.
Look up the Unicode Devanagari code chart for what the short one looks like.
The short could be used in dictionary pronunciation descriptions of foreign words;
I haven't seen it in texts for public consumption.
Kashmiri has short and long [e] but when written in Devanagari, the short one is
written as the long one plus a diacritic; the short [e] matra provided by Unicode
Devanagari is not used.
Dingbat is famous for 'seeing' or rather hearing distinctions where
nobody else hears or has them, and hwere there probably largely are
none. Been there, done that.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Dingbat
2022-01-21 09:38:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Dingbat
Post by Quinn C
AFAICS, [A.:] doesn't exist in any major dialect of English.
Can you detect much of a length difference between these two in
UK English?

1) Not at all
2) Not atoll

I fancy that the difference is quality; i.e., that their
lengths are not particularly different.
Post by Quinn C
Post by Dingbat
Cawed vs. Cod, Dawn vs Don, Pawned vs, Pond.
[O:] vs. [A.], typically.
But I correct my broad statement: [A.:] is listed for parts of Ireland
and Wales, besides as an option in InE and BarE (Bajan).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet_chart_for_English_dialects>
This often goes along with pronuncing bowling as [o:] as well.
Do they never use [oU] or [@U]?
I have [oU] in Bowl but [o:] in Boll, Knoll and Toll.
Quinn C
2022-01-21 14:06:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Quinn C
Post by Dingbat
Post by Quinn C
AFAICS, [A.:] doesn't exist in any major dialect of English.
Can you detect much of a length difference between these two in
UK English?
1) Not at all
2) Not atoll
I fancy that the difference is quality; i.e., that their
lengths are not particularly different.
Post by Quinn C
Post by Dingbat
Cawed vs. Cod, Dawn vs Don, Pawned vs, Pond.
[O:] vs. [A.], typically.
But I correct my broad statement: [A.:] is listed for parts of Ireland
and Wales, besides as an option in InE and BarE (Bajan).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet_chart_for_English_dialects>
This often goes along with pronuncing bowling as [o:] as well.
I have [oU] in Bowl but [o:] in Boll, Knoll and Toll.
You can consult the Wp page about that. They list three subcategories
represented by the words no, tow and soul. No distinction listed for
Irish or Indian English; one split that's specific to some types of
Welsh English (no vs. tow/soul); and another split that's more common,
including contemporary RP, Australia and New Zealand (no/tow vs. soul),
but it's a contrast between two diphthongs.

Of course "Indian English" may just be too broad.
--
Are you sure your sanity chip is fully screwed in, Sir?
-- Kryten to Rimmer (Red Dwarf)
Kerr-Mudd, John
2022-01-22 13:24:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 09:06:08 -0500
Post by Quinn C
Post by Dingbat
Post by Quinn C
Post by Dingbat
Post by Quinn C
AFAICS, [A.:] doesn't exist in any major dialect of English.
Can you detect much of a length difference between these two in
UK English?
1) Not at all
2) Not atoll
I fancy that the difference is quality; i.e., that their
lengths are not particularly different.
Post by Quinn C
Post by Dingbat
Cawed vs. Cod, Dawn vs Don, Pawned vs, Pond.
[O:] vs. [A.], typically.
But I correct my broad statement: [A.:] is listed for parts of Ireland
and Wales, besides as an option in InE and BarE (Bajan).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet_chart_for_English_dialects>
This often goes along with pronuncing bowling as [o:] as well.
I have [oU] in Bowl but [o:] in Boll, Knoll and Toll.
You can consult the Wp page about that. They list three subcategories
represented by the words no, tow and soul. No distinction listed for
Irish or Indian English; one split that's specific to some types of
Welsh English (no vs. tow/soul); and another split that's more common,
including contemporary RP, Australia and New Zealand (no/tow vs. soul),
but it's a contrast between two diphthongs.
Of course "Indian English" may just be too broad.
Northern Irish?
"Ullstir Sais Naw!"
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
Ken Blake
2022-01-15 17:13:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 18:19:53 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
What comes to mind is Balling-Bawling-Bowling.
I have [A.:], [O:] & [o:] in these.
I'd never heard of anyone who pronounces "balling" differently from
"bawling".
I'm not sure what vowels are on your list.
My Bawling has the same vowel as in Born/Borne/Bourne.
Brits pronounce Balling too that way.
It seems that only I pronounce Bawling like Brits but
Balling like Americans.
I pronounce Bawling and Balling identically.
Dingbat
2022-01-15 17:18:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 18:19:53 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
What comes to mind is Balling-Bawling-Bowling.
I have [A.:], [O:] & [o:] in these.
I'd never heard of anyone who pronounces "balling" differently from
"bawling".
I'm not sure what vowels are on your list.
My Bawling has the same vowel as in Born/Borne/Bourne.
Brits pronounce Balling too that way.
It seems that only I pronounce Bawling like Brits but
Balling like Americans.
I pronounce Bawling and Balling identically.
.. like Anglophones on both sides of the pond. That's why I asked a question
about splitting, the opposite of merging. Since I pronounce them differently,
does that make me a splitter?
Jerry Friedman
2022-01-15 19:09:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 18:19:53 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
What comes to mind is Balling-Bawling-Bowling.
I have [A.:], [O:] & [o:] in these.
I'd never heard of anyone who pronounces "balling" differently from
"bawling".
I'm not sure what vowels are on your list.
My Bawling has the same vowel as in Born/Borne/Bourne.
Brits pronounce Balling too that way.
It seems that only I pronounce Bawling like Brits but
Balling like Americans.
I pronounce Bawling and Balling identically.
.. like Anglophones on both sides of the pond. That's why I asked a question
about splitting, the opposite of merging. Since I pronounce them differently,
does that make me a splitter?
Solidarity, brother!
--
Jerry Friedman
Ken Blake
2022-01-06 17:09:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
What comes to mind is Balling-Bawling-Bowling.
I have [A.:], [O:] & [o:] in these.
I'd never heard of anyone who pronounces "balling" differently from
"bawling".
I'm not sure what vowels are on your list. I'd suggest PALM, LOT,
and THOUGHT as often merged. Then there's NORTH and FORCE
(or "horse" and "hoarse"). "Bowling" has the GOAT vowel, but I don't
know of any dialect where that's merged with another vowel, unless
you count FORCE as having that vowel.
I believe that "mull" is getting merged with "moll" or "maul" or both
for a lot of Americans.
Maybe to a lot of Americans, but all three are different to me.
Peter T. Daniels
2022-01-06 16:15:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Is there a standard back vowel counterpart of Marry-Mary-Merry
to be used for studying mergers?
What comes to mind is Balling-Bawling-Bowling.
I have [A.:], [O:] & [o:] in these.
Do you know John Wells, *The Accents of English* (1982)? He
devised a set of labels for all the vowel phonemes found in (at
least) RP and GenAm with notes on other major varieties. Jerry
Friedman often uses those labels here, e.g. when speaking of
the "TRAP-BATH split."

In AmE, "balling" and "bawling" are the same. Luxuriance in
the low-back is cross-dialectal, not intra-dialectal.
Post by Dingbat
[E:] vs [E].
That's your Malayalam talking. You also need to include Merry.
Post by Dingbat
Is there any study of splitting (opposite of merging),
not necessarily phonemic splitting but subphonemic
splitting into allophones?
That makes no sense. Allophones are "conditioned."
Post by Dingbat
I pronounce WHOLLY HOLY as [ho:lI hoUli].
Such a minimal pair suggests that I have a phonemic
distinction /o/ vs /oU/ in my English.
Which is not shared by other English-speakers.

In the 1930s, the phonemicists distinguished "horse" and
"hoarse," but in the mid 1970s I asked Raven McDavid
(Chicago professor, and probably the leading expert on
US dialects) what the difference was, and he said he did
not know.
Loading...