Do you pronounce mirror and nearer the same way (except for the first letter)? I just noticed some people pronouncing them the same way, but for me they are quite distinct, because nearer has 2 syllables, and mirror only 1.
Mirror-nearer merger?
Interesting. To me, they're also distinct, but they both have two syllables:
Mirror ["mIr.@]
Nearer ["nI@r.@]
I speak something close to RP.
Mirror ["mIr.@]
Nearer ["nI@r.@]
I speak something close to RP.
<<Do you pronounce mirror and nearer the same way (except for the first letter)? I just noticed some people pronouncing them the same way, but for me they are quite distinct, because nearer has 2 syllables, and mirror only 1.>>
I pronounce them the same way. In careful speech I'd give both two syllables but in faster, more casual speech just one:
careful:
"nearer" ["nIr\@`]
"mirror" ["mIr\@`]
casual:
"nearer" [nIr\], maybe [nI:r\]
"mirror" [mIr\], maybe [mI:r\]
I pronounce them the same way. In careful speech I'd give both two syllables but in faster, more casual speech just one:
careful:
"nearer" ["nIr\@`]
"mirror" ["mIr\@`]
casual:
"nearer" [nIr\], maybe [nI:r\]
"mirror" [mIr\], maybe [mI:r\]
Interesting. For me they're: [mIr\] and ["mIr\@`] regardless of register. Nearer as [nIr\] sounds like "near" to me.
I have [mI:R] (yes, that's one syllable) and ["nI:RR=] for "mirror" and "nearer". Even in rather formal speech I do not generally say the conservative two-syllable version of "mirror", which would be ["mI:RR=] according to the phonology of the dialect here were I to say it.
"Mirror" with one syllable, whatever next? There is a reason for the extra vowel and consonant, a reason why it is not spelt "mir".
I distinguish between those two words, but I pronounce them both with two syllables:
nearer - ["nI@`.@`]
mirror - ["mI.r\@`]
nearer - ["nI@`.@`]
mirror - ["mI.r\@`]
<<"Mirror" with one syllable, whatever next? There is a reason for the extra vowel and consonant, a reason why it is not spelt "mir".>>
Haha! Since when did you expect English spelling to form a foolproof representation of spoken English? :)
Note that that kind of vowel leveling happens relatively often in English. And not just on this side of the pond. In fact, RP is well-known for its somewhat extreme examples of vowel leveling which would be unheard of here. For instance, RP speakers are well documented as saying things like [p_ha:] or [p_hA:] for "power" instead of the more careful ["p_haU.(w)@] (or compare to my ["p_h{U.(w)@`]). In RP this leveling can also apply to /aI/, so that "tire" and "tower" come to be pronounced the same. In fact, the famous British phonetician John Wells himself (who speaks RP) has written that he pronounces "tower" "tire" and "tar" the same in normal speech, as [t_hA:].
<Interesting. For me they're: [mIr\] and ["mIr\@`] regardless of register. Nearer as [nIr\] sounds like "near" to me.>>
Yeah it does to me, too. That's why I think it's common for the vowel to experience compensatory lengthening. In any case it's usually clear from context that it's a comparative. The same thing happens to me with "rarer," which I might carefully pronounce [r\Er\@`] but in normal speech [r\E:r\] or even [r\E::r\] is probably more common (compare to my "rare" [r\Er\], which always has a short vowel).
Haha! Since when did you expect English spelling to form a foolproof representation of spoken English? :)
Note that that kind of vowel leveling happens relatively often in English. And not just on this side of the pond. In fact, RP is well-known for its somewhat extreme examples of vowel leveling which would be unheard of here. For instance, RP speakers are well documented as saying things like [p_ha:] or [p_hA:] for "power" instead of the more careful ["p_haU.(w)@] (or compare to my ["p_h{U.(w)@`]). In RP this leveling can also apply to /aI/, so that "tire" and "tower" come to be pronounced the same. In fact, the famous British phonetician John Wells himself (who speaks RP) has written that he pronounces "tower" "tire" and "tar" the same in normal speech, as [t_hA:].
<Interesting. For me they're: [mIr\] and ["mIr\@`] regardless of register. Nearer as [nIr\] sounds like "near" to me.>>
Yeah it does to me, too. That's why I think it's common for the vowel to experience compensatory lengthening. In any case it's usually clear from context that it's a comparative. The same thing happens to me with "rarer," which I might carefully pronounce [r\Er\@`] but in normal speech [r\E:r\] or even [r\E::r\] is probably more common (compare to my "rare" [r\Er\], which always has a short vowel).
> Haha! Since when did you expect English spelling to form a foolproof representation of spoken English? :)
Indeed, I was semi-joking, but I see no need to make English even more irregular than it already is.
Indeed, I was semi-joking, but I see no need to make English even more irregular than it already is.
<<Indeed, I was semi-joking, but I see no need to make English even more irregular than it already is.>>
Well, but the actual language is the spoken language and it will do pretty much whatever it pleases. No one "made" English more "irregular" (actually those examples of leveling are pretty reliably predictable for the speakers they apply to) and, by the same token, no one can decide to make it less so. The spoken language isn't something that can be easily reined in. History is smattered with examples of people who have tried--it didn't work.
Well, but the actual language is the spoken language and it will do pretty much whatever it pleases. No one "made" English more "irregular" (actually those examples of leveling are pretty reliably predictable for the speakers they apply to) and, by the same token, no one can decide to make it less so. The spoken language isn't something that can be easily reined in. History is smattered with examples of people who have tried--it didn't work.
> The spoken language isn't something that can be easily reined in. History is smattered with examples of people who have tried--it didn't work.
Simply because an ideal is not 100% attainable does not mean it is undesireable, this is a non-sequitur. We create laws, for example, not because we delude ourselves into thinking that we will ever eliminate crime but because we want to minimise it. We have standards of pronunciation, spelling and grammar not because we imagine everyone will always stick to them or get them correct at all times, but as something to work work towards.
One could just as well argue that since history is littered with fallen civilisations, wars, famines and other undesireable events, and that it unlikely that we'll be able to eliminate them in the future, that it is pointless to try. Obviously language not such a grave matter, but I think it shows the error of this way of thinking.
Simply because an ideal is not 100% attainable does not mean it is undesireable, this is a non-sequitur. We create laws, for example, not because we delude ourselves into thinking that we will ever eliminate crime but because we want to minimise it. We have standards of pronunciation, spelling and grammar not because we imagine everyone will always stick to them or get them correct at all times, but as something to work work towards.
One could just as well argue that since history is littered with fallen civilisations, wars, famines and other undesireable events, and that it unlikely that we'll be able to eliminate them in the future, that it is pointless to try. Obviously language not such a grave matter, but I think it shows the error of this way of thinking.
No I don't, and I don't really know how the phonetic symbols represent the proper sounds, but...
I pronounce mirror as mi-ruh (with a short "i" as in "if")
and nearer as nyee-ruh or nyair-ruh depending on how much I stress it.
I pronounce mirror as mi-ruh (with a short "i" as in "if")
and nearer as nyee-ruh or nyair-ruh depending on how much I stress it.
<<Simply because an ideal is not 100% attainable does not mean it is undesireable, this is a non-sequitur. We create laws, for example, not because we delude ourselves into thinking that we will ever eliminate crime but because we want to minimise it. We have standards of pronunciation, spelling and grammar not because we imagine everyone will always stick to them or get them correct at all times, but as something to work work towards. >>
Your analogy to laws and crime doesn't work because it implies that language is somehow imperfect, broken or deficient and that it needs to be fixed or remodeled and guided towards a more perfect state of being.
Yes, plenty of things in life need to be improved upon and there are certainly worthy goals worth pursuing (even if lofty) yet trying to artificially change language is quite another thing. That's even assuming language can be willfully changed or directed (especially the spoken language, which we were talking about) when that's overwhelmingly not the case.
<<No I don't, and I don't really know how the phonetic symbols represent the proper sounds, but...
I pronounce mirror as mi-ruh (with a short "i" as in "if")
and nearer as nyee-ruh or nyair-ruh depending on how much I stress it.>>
That's interesting. Where are you from, Bonnie Zhang? By the way, if you're curious about the phonetic transcription we use here (which is X-SAMPA, a version of the International Phonetic Alphabet widely used in linguistic circles where the special fonts aren't visible to all) I wrote a little tutorial here:
http://www.langcafe.net/viewtopic.php?t=278&sid=05026f79c10f4b489582e753b69c539f
<</mI.r@/
/nI:.r@/>>
Good old phonemic vowel-length differences in AuE :D
Your analogy to laws and crime doesn't work because it implies that language is somehow imperfect, broken or deficient and that it needs to be fixed or remodeled and guided towards a more perfect state of being.
Yes, plenty of things in life need to be improved upon and there are certainly worthy goals worth pursuing (even if lofty) yet trying to artificially change language is quite another thing. That's even assuming language can be willfully changed or directed (especially the spoken language, which we were talking about) when that's overwhelmingly not the case.
<<No I don't, and I don't really know how the phonetic symbols represent the proper sounds, but...
I pronounce mirror as mi-ruh (with a short "i" as in "if")
and nearer as nyee-ruh or nyair-ruh depending on how much I stress it.>>
That's interesting. Where are you from, Bonnie Zhang? By the way, if you're curious about the phonetic transcription we use here (which is X-SAMPA, a version of the International Phonetic Alphabet widely used in linguistic circles where the special fonts aren't visible to all) I wrote a little tutorial here:
http://www.langcafe.net/viewtopic.php?t=278&sid=05026f79c10f4b489582e753b69c539f
<</mI.r@/
/nI:.r@/>>
Good old phonemic vowel-length differences in AuE :D