|
|
Vowel in "real"
Is "real" /ril/ or /rɪl/? I think I hear it as /rɪl/ most of the time, so either the feel-fill merger is very common (which is probably not so), or "real" and related words are exceptions.
Can anybody tell me more about this, in American English? Thanks.
At least here, "real" is either underlying /ˈril/ or /ˈriəl/ depending on how carefully the person is speaking, which are realized as [ˈʁiːɯ̯] or [ˈʁiːɯː] respectively. However, though, "really" is /ˈrɪli/, realized as [ˈʁɪːɯ̯iː], here except when very stressed or in rather careful speech, where then it is /ˈrili/, realized as [ˈʁiːɯ̯iː].
We pronounce it as if it was spelled "reel" or "reelly". As in, "Is that a 'reel' diamond?"
/rIl/ for the most part. When I read the topic line of this thread I pronounce it /ril/ but in normal speech it's /rIl/.
OK, I see it's a mess, as always, LOL. Yes, as Travis said, I think I would tend to reduce the vowel in "really" more than the one in "real". This seems very curious to me (and maybe even confusing, since I'm a non-native speaker).
<</rIl/ for the most part. When I read the topic line of this thread I pronounce it /ril/ but in normal speech it's /rIl/. >> Skippy, you should be from the south, if I'm not mistaken. If so, you might have a little bit of a feel-fill merger. Do you think you have that?
The matter is that vowel reduction and other sound changes (such as laxing before /l/) are often stress-conditioned in practice, and can both be highly irregular on their own and be linked to irregularities in stress. In particular, such changes are more likely to occur in words are less strongly stressed, which in many cases will affect more common words more often than less common words. For instance, laxing before /l/ is relatively common in North American English dialects, but in most of such dialects it generally only occurs in the very most common cases, particularly personal pronouns followed by "'ll" and certain other extremely common words such as "really". As for irregularities in stress, they are shown by things like "can" often being far less stressed than "can't" in many English dialects, as shown by "can" very frequently undergoing vowel reduction while "can't" generally does not undergo vowel reduction.
In my speech it's homophonous with "reel", as [ɹi:ɫ]. (I'm not sure whether /ɹi:ɫ/ or /ɹɪl/ is predominant in American English.) I think this word might be complicated by the fact that it was originally disyllabic, and in RP, for example, it's become smoothed as [ɹɪəɫ].
At least here, it is not always homophonous with "reel", as "reel" is always /ˈril/ > [ˈʁiːɯ̯] here and never /ˈriəl/ > [ˈʁiːɯː], showing the underlying difference between the two words historically.
"If so, you might have a little bit of a feel-fill merger. Do you think you have that?"
Knowing exactly where he's from, I'd be surprised. For me, a southerner, "reel" and "real" are homophonous. "Rill" is not... |