/r\/ is supposedly the sound native speakers in america use for 'r' in words, but for me, although english is my native langauge, this letter is an approximant made more around where 'g' or 'k' would be made, not aveolar as far as i can tell. Can anyone tell me what sort of sound i make?
/r\/
It seems like you have the same sound as Travis does [R_o]. He's from Wisconsin; where are you from?
Well, what would I call the kind of of r that I say? When i make the sound, its very similar to [j] but at the same time my tounge seems to be pushed to the roof of my mouth more. Its almost like it was an aveolar palatalized approximant, and somehow lost the aveolar part of it. Same sort of thing happened with my l's at the end of syllables, they are something like a velarized alveolar lateral approximant that has lost its aveolar component. Very odd.
<<Same sort of thing happened with my l's at the end of syllables, they are something like a velarized alveolar lateral approximant that has lost its aveolar component.>>
Hmm, perhaps for that one you could use [L\] (small capital <l> in IPA), the velar lateral approximant.
Hmm, perhaps for that one you could use [L\] (small capital <l> in IPA), the velar lateral approximant.
<<He's from Wisconsin; where are you from?>>
I live in urban texas. I wasnt born in Texas, I was born in north arkansas. And I think that my accent is a lot like that of someone who lives in St.Louis
I live in urban texas. I wasnt born in Texas, I was born in north arkansas. And I think that my accent is a lot like that of someone who lives in St.Louis
<<Hmm, perhaps for that one you could use [L\] (small capital <l> in IPA), the velar lateral approximant.>>
Yeah. It seems likely that my /l/ in final position is actually [L\].
Yeah. It seems likely that my /l/ in final position is actually [L\].
>>It seems like you have the same sound as Travis does [R_o]. He's from Wisconsin; where are you from?<<
Note that I do have the laminal postalveolar approximant [r\_-] after coronals, and in free variation with the uvular approxmimant [R_o] after labials. Also note that it seems that not everyone here has the same sort of distribution of the two allophones, as, for example, my SO seems to have [r\_-] in all onsets even though she seems to still have [R_o] in codas.
Note that I do have the laminal postalveolar approximant [r\_-] after coronals, and in free variation with the uvular approxmimant [R_o] after labials. Also note that it seems that not everyone here has the same sort of distribution of the two allophones, as, for example, my SO seems to have [r\_-] in all onsets even though she seems to still have [R_o] in codas.
Even though we tend to use [r\] to transcribe this, I think most Americans use [r\`] for this sound. This is my 'default' allophone, though I also use [r\_e] and [v\] in different situations.
The difference between [l] and [L\] might actually be phonemic for me rather than allophones of a single /l/. "Probably" [pr\Ali] doesn't rhyme with "dolly" [dAL\i].
<<The difference between [l] and [L\] might actually be phonemic for me rather than allophones of a single /l/. "Probably" [pr\Ali] doesn't rhyme with "dolly" [dAL\i].>>
I've heard of this type of thing before. Do you distinguish 'wholly' and 'holy'? In Estuary English and increasingly in RP, /@U/ before /l/ is pronounced [QU], making these words different: wholly [hQUli] and holy [h@Uli]. It sounds like you have a similar phenomenon.
I've heard of this type of thing before. Do you distinguish 'wholly' and 'holy'? In Estuary English and increasingly in RP, /@U/ before /l/ is pronounced [QU], making these words different: wholly [hQUli] and holy [h@Uli]. It sounds like you have a similar phenomenon.
<<I've heard of this type of thing before. Do you distinguish 'wholly' and 'holy'? In Estuary English and increasingly in RP, /@U/ before /l/ is pronounced [QU], making these words different: wholly [hQUli] and holy [h@Uli]. It sounds like you have a similar phenomenon.>>
I don't think "wholly-holy" is a good example though. In my speech, and also in the Cambridge Online Dictionary, for example, "wholly" has /l.l/, so I think for many speakers they wouldn't form a good contrastive pair. A better pair in my speech, for example, is "holy" ["hoU5.i] versus "slowly" ["sl7U.li]. (Note, of course, that the phenomenon in my speech is more extensive than the one Wells describes, because he uses "holy" as an example for the un-l-influenced vowel, whereas the l-influencing has expanded to include a ton of words in my speech, so I'm actually using "holy" as an example for an l-influenced vowel).
I also make contrasts like:
really ["r\i5.i]
freely ["fr\i.li]
And:
daily ["deI.li]
scaly ["skeI5.i]
And:
newly ["nu.li]
unruly [Vn"r\U5.i]
And:
curling ["k_h3`5.IN]
surly ["s3`.li]
And:
highly ["haI.li]
filing ["faI.5=.IN]
And although I can't think of any good contrasts, this l-influencing also happens in:
oiling ["OI.5=.IN]
And:
fouling ["faU.5=.IN]
But this doesn't affect [A] for me:
"prolly" ["p_hr\Q.li]
dolly ["dQ.li]
For me, /l/ can create combined forms with the vowels [eI], [i], [7U], [u], [aI], [aU], [OI], and [3`].
I don't think "wholly-holy" is a good example though. In my speech, and also in the Cambridge Online Dictionary, for example, "wholly" has /l.l/, so I think for many speakers they wouldn't form a good contrastive pair. A better pair in my speech, for example, is "holy" ["hoU5.i] versus "slowly" ["sl7U.li]. (Note, of course, that the phenomenon in my speech is more extensive than the one Wells describes, because he uses "holy" as an example for the un-l-influenced vowel, whereas the l-influencing has expanded to include a ton of words in my speech, so I'm actually using "holy" as an example for an l-influenced vowel).
I also make contrasts like:
really ["r\i5.i]
freely ["fr\i.li]
And:
daily ["deI.li]
scaly ["skeI5.i]
And:
newly ["nu.li]
unruly [Vn"r\U5.i]
And:
curling ["k_h3`5.IN]
surly ["s3`.li]
And:
highly ["haI.li]
filing ["faI.5=.IN]
And although I can't think of any good contrasts, this l-influencing also happens in:
oiling ["OI.5=.IN]
And:
fouling ["faU.5=.IN]
But this doesn't affect [A] for me:
"prolly" ["p_hr\Q.li]
dolly ["dQ.li]
For me, /l/ can create combined forms with the vowels [eI], [i], [7U], [u], [aI], [aU], [OI], and [3`].
I mean, this doesn't affect [Q] for me. But it wouldn't affect [A] for me either, as you would be able to see if we could compare "Dali" with a hypothetical adverb "daahly" (meaning, "in a very daah manner", of course), both of which would be ["dA.li] for me. ;-)
I actually have a three-way contrast:
wholly ["hoU5.li]
holy ["hoU5.i]
slowly ["sl7U.li]
wholly ["hoU5.li]
holy ["hoU5.i]
slowly ["sl7U.li]
Do "curly" and "early" rhyme for you? I have [k=r\=5.li] (or is it written [kr\=5=.li] which way does the "=" go?) vs. [=r\.li] or [r\=.li]. I likewise have a contrast between "duller" [doL\.=r\] and "color" [kV.l=r\] not rhyming.