Do you have a hurry bury or a Harry bury merger?
What is Mary-marry-merry merger?
>> >> It's just like how there are different vowels in "bat": bæt and "bet": bEt for most speakers. <<
No, phonologically speaking, everyone has /æ/ in bat, and regardless of whether they may have the Northern cities vowel shift, or the California vowel shift or the Canadian shift, or other various shifts, and still will perceive it as an /æ/. Even if it sounds like [E] because of a shift, /E/ would still be pronounced distinctly.
>> I understand perfectly. But like I said, for someone trying to understand the non-merged pronunciations, that's where imagination comes in.
Using your notion:
mary = mE:ri (or mE@ri for some)
<<
The problem is that speakers of Western American English have only limited capability to perceive vowel length. You can hold the [E] in "mary" for as long as you want and it doesn't make it sound any different. A similar example would be: if you recorded someone saying "cat", and then "caaaat", a speaker listening would perceive them to be exactly the same word. It would change the meaning and would be as perceivable as much as if you pretended that English was a tonal language and pronounced "cat" with two different pitches. <<
>> Do you have a hurry bury or a Harry bury merger? <<
No, but I have a berry-barry-bury merger. And Harry and Herring have the same vowel.
No, phonologically speaking, everyone has /æ/ in bat, and regardless of whether they may have the Northern cities vowel shift, or the California vowel shift or the Canadian shift, or other various shifts, and still will perceive it as an /æ/. Even if it sounds like [E] because of a shift, /E/ would still be pronounced distinctly.
>> I understand perfectly. But like I said, for someone trying to understand the non-merged pronunciations, that's where imagination comes in.
Using your notion:
mary = mE:ri (or mE@ri for some)
<<
The problem is that speakers of Western American English have only limited capability to perceive vowel length. You can hold the [E] in "mary" for as long as you want and it doesn't make it sound any different. A similar example would be: if you recorded someone saying "cat", and then "caaaat", a speaker listening would perceive them to be exactly the same word. It would change the meaning and would be as perceivable as much as if you pretended that English was a tonal language and pronounced "cat" with two different pitches. <<
>> Do you have a hurry bury or a Harry bury merger? <<
No, but I have a berry-barry-bury merger. And Harry and Herring have the same vowel.
People the have the California vowel shift pronounce /E/ like others pronounce [æ]. So words like mary-marry-merry all get the "a" vowel (like in bat"). I just heard someone from California say "Amaricans", and it sounded very funny.
How else do you say American besides "A-mare-i-can" (schwas at both ends, of course).
Oh Uriel, there are no fewer than four ways to say "American"! ;)
For a 3M-unmerged person like me, it's [əˈmɛɹɪkn̩], or "a-meh-ri-can".
The typical pronunciation for 3M-merged people (i.e. most Americans) is [əˈmɛɚɪkn̩], or "a-mare-i-can".
Then some 3M-merged individuals - and I have heard them - pronounce it with a lowered vowel: [əˈmæɹɪkn̩], or "a-ma-ri-can", using the same "a" sound as in "cat".
And finally, if you had a Philadelphia accent, then it would be [əˈmɜ˞:ɪkn̩], or "a-murr-i-can".
For a 3M-unmerged person like me, it's [əˈmɛɹɪkn̩], or "a-meh-ri-can".
The typical pronunciation for 3M-merged people (i.e. most Americans) is [əˈmɛɚɪkn̩], or "a-mare-i-can".
Then some 3M-merged individuals - and I have heard them - pronounce it with a lowered vowel: [əˈmæɹɪkn̩], or "a-ma-ri-can", using the same "a" sound as in "cat".
And finally, if you had a Philadelphia accent, then it would be [əˈmɜ˞:ɪkn̩], or "a-murr-i-can".
>>No, phonologically speaking, everyone has /æ/ in bat... <<
Exactly. Most speakers differentiate "bet" from "bat". So what was the problem?
>>The problem is that speakers of Western American English have only limited capability to perceive vowel length. You can hold the [E] in "mary" for as long as you want and it doesn't make it sound any different. A similar example would be: if you recorded someone saying "cat", and then "caaaat", a speaker listening would perceive them to be exactly the same word. It would change the meaning and would be as perceivable as much as if you pretended that English was a tonal language and pronounced "cat" with two different pitches. <<
They don't need to perceive it ordinarily. But if we can't describe anything using simple language or notation, then what's the point of discussing the merged/non-merged differences when someone asks?
Exactly. Most speakers differentiate "bet" from "bat". So what was the problem?
>>The problem is that speakers of Western American English have only limited capability to perceive vowel length. You can hold the [E] in "mary" for as long as you want and it doesn't make it sound any different. A similar example would be: if you recorded someone saying "cat", and then "caaaat", a speaker listening would perceive them to be exactly the same word. It would change the meaning and would be as perceivable as much as if you pretended that English was a tonal language and pronounced "cat" with two different pitches. <<
They don't need to perceive it ordinarily. But if we can't describe anything using simple language or notation, then what's the point of discussing the merged/non-merged differences when someone asks?
<<Here's a sound sample of me pronouncing all these words in the mergers - I don't seem to be merged.>>
Where?
Where?
asdf wrote:
>>The problem is that speakers of Western American English have only limited capability to perceive vowel length. You can hold the [E] in "mary" for as long as you want and it doesn't make it sound any different. A similar example would be: if you recorded someone saying "cat", and then "caaaat", a speaker listening would perceive them to be exactly the same word.<<
Seems strange to me.
Would "eat it", pronounced with the first vowel very short and the second very long still be perceived as "eat it" and not as "it eat" ?
>>The problem is that speakers of Western American English have only limited capability to perceive vowel length. You can hold the [E] in "mary" for as long as you want and it doesn't make it sound any different. A similar example would be: if you recorded someone saying "cat", and then "caaaat", a speaker listening would perceive them to be exactly the same word.<<
Seems strange to me.
Would "eat it", pronounced with the first vowel very short and the second very long still be perceived as "eat it" and not as "it eat" ?
-Would "eat it", pronounced with the first vowel very short and the second very long still be perceived as "eat it" and not as "it eat" ? -
The primary difference between it [I] vowel and eat [i] vowel is not the vowel length, but different production. Furthermore, in US english there are no vowel length differences to be observed between [I] and [i], for example, Mariah Carey sings: I can't liiiiiiiiiive, if the living is without you, the vowel is very long (due to singing) but it's still tense i [I:::::] pronuncionwise, she doesn't sing: I can't leave [i::::], if the living is without you.
The primary difference between it [I] vowel and eat [i] vowel is not the vowel length, but different production. Furthermore, in US english there are no vowel length differences to be observed between [I] and [i], for example, Mariah Carey sings: I can't liiiiiiiiiive, if the living is without you, the vowel is very long (due to singing) but it's still tense i [I:::::] pronuncionwise, she doesn't sing: I can't leave [i::::], if the living is without you.
People the have the California vowel shift pronounce /E/ like others pronounce [æ]. So words like mary-marry-merry all get the "a" vowel (like in bat"). I just heard someone from California say "Amaricans", and it sounded very funny.
/
I don't think it sounds funny. For example, with dark L, shift is observed universally, even in Chicago: yellow---> yallow...
Hear 4 yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtbbWlaJC-k
/
I don't think it sounds funny. For example, with dark L, shift is observed universally, even in Chicago: yellow---> yallow...
Hear 4 yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtbbWlaJC-k
<<Furthermore, in US english there are no vowel length differences to be observed between [I] and [i], for example, Mariah Carey sings:>>
I disagree; often when someone with, say, a Spanish or Greek accent pronounces English /i:/, they'll use a short [i], and it'll sound to native speakers rather like /ɪ/. I think you can see instances of this in "I Love Lucy", for example, when Lucy makes fun of Ricky's accent.
I disagree; often when someone with, say, a Spanish or Greek accent pronounces English /i:/, they'll use a short [i], and it'll sound to native speakers rather like /ɪ/. I think you can see instances of this in "I Love Lucy", for example, when Lucy makes fun of Ricky's accent.
It was Daniel Jones' mistake:
''
it [it] ''short i''
eat [i:t] ''long i'' ''
but most foreign professors of English all across Europe keep teaching this nonsense.
''
it [it] ''short i''
eat [i:t] ''long i'' ''
but most foreign professors of English all across Europe keep teaching this nonsense.
>>Furthermore, in US english there are no vowel length differences to be observed between [I] and [i], for example, Mariah Carey sings: <<
But singing negates that property in other dialects too and it only really matters in speech to contrast them.
But singing negates that property in other dialects too and it only really matters in speech to contrast them.