This is mostly for Brits, but of course anyone else can answer if they like. Do you pronounce garage as ["g{.r\A:Z] (GA-razh) or ["g{.r\Id_Z] (GA-ridge). I pronounce it [g@."r\AZ], but some people here say [g@."r\{Z].
Garage
>>I pronounce it /g@rAd_Z/, with a /d_Z/ sound at the end.<<
You also hear pronunciations like [g@:"Ra:tS], analogous to such, here as well.
You also hear pronunciations like [g@:"Ra:tS], analogous to such, here as well.
Interesting. I've never heard all of those exotic pronunciations before. Here it is simply [g@rAZ].
Ga-ridge all the way my son. I'll be honest I always blamed the Ga-rahgh (??) pronunciation on the American's. Nope, many Britons really do pronounce it the American way (or rather they pronounce it 'our' way :) ). Being from the South East I can tell you it is 'Ga - ridge' all the way mate. I will be honest, the other pronuncitaion maybe dare I say more upper class here in ole Blighty??
Actually, I am a tad confused with regards to the original pronunciation in Britain of that word. My grandad's pronunciation is the same as the American's. Which one came first?? As far as I can make out, the Ga - ridge version is a newer form. Answers on a postcard please.
I am sorry but I still do not understand what [g@rAZ], [g@:"Ra:tS], g@rAd_Z, [g@:"Ra:S] etc etc mean.
Actually, I am a tad confused with regards to the original pronunciation in Britain of that word. My grandad's pronunciation is the same as the American's. Which one came first?? As far as I can make out, the Ga - ridge version is a newer form. Answers on a postcard please.
I am sorry but I still do not understand what [g@rAZ], [g@:"Ra:tS], g@rAd_Z, [g@:"Ra:S] etc etc mean.
>> I am sorry but I still do not understand what [g@rAZ], [g@:"Ra:tS], g@rAd_Z, [g@:"Ra:S] etc etc mean.<<
[g@rAZ] = guh-rahzh (where "ah" is the vowel that a cot-caught-bother-father merged North American would use in the words cot-caught-bother-father; zh= the "s" in the word Asia)
[g@rAd_Z] = same as above, but with a "j" sound like in "jug" rather than a zh sound like in Asia
[g@:"Ra:tS] = guh-rartch (where the first "r" is a hard "r", and the second "r" not pronounced, simply lengthening the vowel)
[g@:"Ra:S] = guh-rarsh (2nd r silent, but lengthening the vowel.)
[g@rAZ] = guh-rahzh (where "ah" is the vowel that a cot-caught-bother-father merged North American would use in the words cot-caught-bother-father; zh= the "s" in the word Asia)
[g@rAd_Z] = same as above, but with a "j" sound like in "jug" rather than a zh sound like in Asia
[g@:"Ra:tS] = guh-rartch (where the first "r" is a hard "r", and the second "r" not pronounced, simply lengthening the vowel)
[g@:"Ra:S] = guh-rarsh (2nd r silent, but lengthening the vowel.)
Blimey!!
That was really interesting - and helpful, cheers ZZZ!! I really appreciate the help. I also, did not realise so many pronunciations existed for Ga-ridge!! I was only aware of two.
That was really interesting - and helpful, cheers ZZZ!! I really appreciate the help. I also, did not realise so many pronunciations existed for Ga-ridge!! I was only aware of two.
Hmm...I think I say [g@rAd_Z] (like Ga-rahj?). My mum speaks fairly posh English but my dad says Ga-ridge (he's an Essex man). Somehow I've inherited a mixture of the two. My mum is from Finsbury Park (London) so I don't know why she doesn't say ga-ridge like my Cockney maate Mr Lunch.
>>[g@:"Ra:tS] = guh-rartch (where the first "r" is a hard "r", and the second "r" not pronounced, simply lengthening the vowel)
[g@:"Ra:S] = guh-rarsh (2nd r silent, but lengthening the vowel.)<<
The vowel lengthening here is really just do to allophonic vowel length, as these really have /dZ/ and /Z/ underlyingly. However, final devoicing is occurring here, so /dZ/ is realized as [tS] and /Z/ is realized as [S]. Note that this vowel lengthening actually occurs in all North American English dialects (as well on a secondary level in English English and, in a modified form, in Scottish English as the Scottish Vowel Length Rule), but is just not normally transcribed for most. I transcribe vowel length for mine simply because I can actually form minimal pairs on vowel length in my dialect and because it is often critical to differentiating fortis-lenis obstruent pairs IMD.
Note that there is one slight detail here that I generally omit: this [tS] is different from the [tS] from /tS/ in that it is unglottalized despite being in an immediately postvocalic coda position whereas the [tS] from /tS/ would really be [?tS] here (but is not normally transcribed that way). Also, not all people here truly have consistent devoicing in non-prevocalic positions for fricatives and affricates, even though my own idiolect is quite consistent in such, and may rather vary between full devoicing and more GA-like half-voicing.
[g@:"Ra:S] = guh-rarsh (2nd r silent, but lengthening the vowel.)<<
The vowel lengthening here is really just do to allophonic vowel length, as these really have /dZ/ and /Z/ underlyingly. However, final devoicing is occurring here, so /dZ/ is realized as [tS] and /Z/ is realized as [S]. Note that this vowel lengthening actually occurs in all North American English dialects (as well on a secondary level in English English and, in a modified form, in Scottish English as the Scottish Vowel Length Rule), but is just not normally transcribed for most. I transcribe vowel length for mine simply because I can actually form minimal pairs on vowel length in my dialect and because it is often critical to differentiating fortis-lenis obstruent pairs IMD.
Note that there is one slight detail here that I generally omit: this [tS] is different from the [tS] from /tS/ in that it is unglottalized despite being in an immediately postvocalic coda position whereas the [tS] from /tS/ would really be [?tS] here (but is not normally transcribed that way). Also, not all people here truly have consistent devoicing in non-prevocalic positions for fricatives and affricates, even though my own idiolect is quite consistent in such, and may rather vary between full devoicing and more GA-like half-voicing.
>>The vowel lengthening here is really just do to allophonic vowel length, as these really have /dZ/ and /Z/ underlyingly. However, final devoicing is occurring here, so /dZ/ is realized as [tS] and /Z/ is realized as [S]. Note that this vowel lengthening actually occurs in all North American English dialects (as well on a secondary level in English English and, in a modified form, in Scottish English as the Scottish Vowel Length Rule), but is just not normally transcribed for most. I transcribe vowel length for mine simply because I can actually form minimal pairs on vowel length in my dialect and because it is often critical to differentiating fortis-lenis obstruent pairs IMD.
Note that there is one slight detail here that I generally omit: this [tS] is different from the [tS] from /tS/ in that it is unglottalized despite being in an immediately postvocalic coda position whereas the [tS] from /tS/ would really be [?tS] here (but is not normally transcribed that way). Also, not all people here truly have consistent devoicing in non-prevocalic positions for fricatives and affricates, even though my own idiolect is quite consistent in such, and may rather vary between full devoicing and more GA-like half-voicing.<<
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/8530/colin3hb3.jpg
Note that there is one slight detail here that I generally omit: this [tS] is different from the [tS] from /tS/ in that it is unglottalized despite being in an immediately postvocalic coda position whereas the [tS] from /tS/ would really be [?tS] here (but is not normally transcribed that way). Also, not all people here truly have consistent devoicing in non-prevocalic positions for fricatives and affricates, even though my own idiolect is quite consistent in such, and may rather vary between full devoicing and more GA-like half-voicing.<<
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/8530/colin3hb3.jpg
>>http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/8530/colin3hb3.jpg<<
In simpler terms, I transcribe vowel length which occurs in North American English dialects to begin with but which most individuals do not transcribe due to minimal pairs on vowel length being possible in my dialect. Also, the presence of [S] or [tS] instead of [Z] or [dZ] in my dialect here is simply due to final devoicing. Finally, [tS] from devoiced /dZ/ is actually not identical to [tS] from /tS/ after vowels due to the latter being effectively immediately preceded by a glottal stop which is not normally transcribed. I don't think I can put this in simpler terms.
In simpler terms, I transcribe vowel length which occurs in North American English dialects to begin with but which most individuals do not transcribe due to minimal pairs on vowel length being possible in my dialect. Also, the presence of [S] or [tS] instead of [Z] or [dZ] in my dialect here is simply due to final devoicing. Finally, [tS] from devoiced /dZ/ is actually not identical to [tS] from /tS/ after vowels due to the latter being effectively immediately preceded by a glottal stop which is not normally transcribed. I don't think I can put this in simpler terms.