>> Isn't English West Country supposed to be very close to general American? <<
Oh cool. Do you know any links to audio samples for West Country English?
Oh cool. Do you know any links to audio samples for West Country English?
Closest Accent to General American
Audio samples for the whole range of UK accents on:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/
For West Country, go down to the South West of England...the bit with Cornish peninsula sticking out into the sea. For true old Cornish guys speaking click on the link that says Marazion Apollo Male Choir. I went to Marazion last year....it's pronounced: MARRA-zye-un.
Down in Cornwall and Devon, Somerset and Dorset (officially the West Country) the local accents with the distinctive rhotic burr are now very much age related. The old West Country accents are dying out as the younger generation are much more standard English English RP Southern English English, with varying traces of Estuary creeping in. That part of the country (England) is one which has had considerable immigration from the rest of England (particulalry from London and the South East) because of things like retirement, holiday homes, slower and less stressful way of life and the much milder winter weather along the coast of Devon and Cornwall. Torquay, Paignton and Brixham (Torbay) is officially known as the English Riviera, with palm trees along the sea fronts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/
For West Country, go down to the South West of England...the bit with Cornish peninsula sticking out into the sea. For true old Cornish guys speaking click on the link that says Marazion Apollo Male Choir. I went to Marazion last year....it's pronounced: MARRA-zye-un.
Down in Cornwall and Devon, Somerset and Dorset (officially the West Country) the local accents with the distinctive rhotic burr are now very much age related. The old West Country accents are dying out as the younger generation are much more standard English English RP Southern English English, with varying traces of Estuary creeping in. That part of the country (England) is one which has had considerable immigration from the rest of England (particulalry from London and the South East) because of things like retirement, holiday homes, slower and less stressful way of life and the much milder winter weather along the coast of Devon and Cornwall. Torquay, Paignton and Brixham (Torbay) is officially known as the English Riviera, with palm trees along the sea fronts.
>>Re: "Umm, no, you're including several different distinct dialect groups in just that range, including many Upper Midwestern dialects (such as my own) and dialects along the West Coast which really cannot be called "General American".
Travis,
Please keep in mind that: 1) Differences in accent and pronunciation do not necessarily mean a difference in "dialect." "Variation" would probably be a better term to use.<<
I am using the term "dialect" in the strict sense of language varieties linked to particular locales, as opposed to register, which is linked to formality (and often stress), idiolect, which depends on the individual in question, and standard forms, which are (generally) artificial formalized varieties used for various purposes, but especially writing and media. I am not using it in any popular sense of the term or like, and as for whoever you got this idea from, they are just wrong, period.
If that is not good enough for you, consider that such variation does not include just phonology, but also morphology, syntax, lexicon, and usage; consequently, one cannot say "but it is just a mere accent" with respect to such.
>>2) A Wisconsin accent is not distinct to most people in the Northern and Western United States the way say, a Southern accent is ... now there's distinct accent! However I would have a harder time distinguishing between a speaker from Madison and Seattle. <<
Well, according to even people from just the Chicago area, they can definitely hear a distinct difference between the dialect there and that here in the Milwaukee area, the difference most strongly noticed being realized vowel length (that here being perceived as far more distinct or "longer" as people say). I also remember someone from Indiana also noticing not only a noticably strong vowel length distinction, but also word-final devoicing and interdental hardening. And these are just people from other parts of the Upper Midwest at that, much the less people from other parts of English-speaking North America as a whole.
I also remember individuals noticing very "strong" rhotics (that is, uvular rhotics) in postvocalic positions, marked lateral vocalization, and the consistent shifting of historical /{/ to /E{/ or /E/ in at least one lengthy sound sample that I had taken. However, not all these people were from the Midwest, so they do not apply quite as strongly as the above.
>>3) It is problematical whether Wisconsin is part of the "Midwest". Some geographers and demographers prefer to put it in a 'Great Lakes' region that includes Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and maybe even Kentucky and upstate New York. But this region is not characterized by a single variation of American English but is instead intersected by three : Inland Northern, General American and Southern Midland.<<
Hah. Hah. Hah. Just what do you call the Midwest exactly? The area that you specify there is *exactly* what the Midwest is, except that I would be somewhat hesitant to call even the southern portions of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio "Midwestern", and conversely would include North Dakota due to it being too close historically, culturally, and linguistically to Minnesota to be excluded.
While other areas may call themselves "Midwestern" (that is, just about any area that is relatively flat and has lots of corn), I would myself exclude them; yes, that means excluding areas like Missouri, Kansas, and whatnot.
Note that while I use the term Upper Midwest, it only actually acts to make what I mean clear (by explicitly excluding areas like Missouri and like), as in practice to me the Upper Midwest *is* the Midwest, even though it does put an emphasis on its northern portions (North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) while deemphasizing all but the very northern parts of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.
>>According to this scheme, Wisconsin is part of the Inland Norhtern accent region which stetches from Eastern Washington State all the way to upstate New York. Closely alligned with it is Canadian English spoken on the other side of the border. <<
Yeah fucking right. The dialects spoken in Washington are far closer to California English than to the English over here in Wisconsin, as they share things like various vowel raising phenomena which do not occur here with it, for starters, and the NCVS, which practically defines the vowel systems of dialects in much of the Upper Midwest, peters out as you go west of Minnesota.
Also, as mentioned before, the father-bother merger merged to /O/ in English dialects in Canada, whereas here it merged to /A/ (which has since become /a/) in most cases (but /O/ in certain other cases). But then, Canadian English is still in some ways close to the English here, in that at least Canadian Raising for /aI/ is shared by both of them.
Travis,
Please keep in mind that: 1) Differences in accent and pronunciation do not necessarily mean a difference in "dialect." "Variation" would probably be a better term to use.<<
I am using the term "dialect" in the strict sense of language varieties linked to particular locales, as opposed to register, which is linked to formality (and often stress), idiolect, which depends on the individual in question, and standard forms, which are (generally) artificial formalized varieties used for various purposes, but especially writing and media. I am not using it in any popular sense of the term or like, and as for whoever you got this idea from, they are just wrong, period.
If that is not good enough for you, consider that such variation does not include just phonology, but also morphology, syntax, lexicon, and usage; consequently, one cannot say "but it is just a mere accent" with respect to such.
>>2) A Wisconsin accent is not distinct to most people in the Northern and Western United States the way say, a Southern accent is ... now there's distinct accent! However I would have a harder time distinguishing between a speaker from Madison and Seattle. <<
Well, according to even people from just the Chicago area, they can definitely hear a distinct difference between the dialect there and that here in the Milwaukee area, the difference most strongly noticed being realized vowel length (that here being perceived as far more distinct or "longer" as people say). I also remember someone from Indiana also noticing not only a noticably strong vowel length distinction, but also word-final devoicing and interdental hardening. And these are just people from other parts of the Upper Midwest at that, much the less people from other parts of English-speaking North America as a whole.
I also remember individuals noticing very "strong" rhotics (that is, uvular rhotics) in postvocalic positions, marked lateral vocalization, and the consistent shifting of historical /{/ to /E{/ or /E/ in at least one lengthy sound sample that I had taken. However, not all these people were from the Midwest, so they do not apply quite as strongly as the above.
>>3) It is problematical whether Wisconsin is part of the "Midwest". Some geographers and demographers prefer to put it in a 'Great Lakes' region that includes Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and maybe even Kentucky and upstate New York. But this region is not characterized by a single variation of American English but is instead intersected by three : Inland Northern, General American and Southern Midland.<<
Hah. Hah. Hah. Just what do you call the Midwest exactly? The area that you specify there is *exactly* what the Midwest is, except that I would be somewhat hesitant to call even the southern portions of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio "Midwestern", and conversely would include North Dakota due to it being too close historically, culturally, and linguistically to Minnesota to be excluded.
While other areas may call themselves "Midwestern" (that is, just about any area that is relatively flat and has lots of corn), I would myself exclude them; yes, that means excluding areas like Missouri, Kansas, and whatnot.
Note that while I use the term Upper Midwest, it only actually acts to make what I mean clear (by explicitly excluding areas like Missouri and like), as in practice to me the Upper Midwest *is* the Midwest, even though it does put an emphasis on its northern portions (North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) while deemphasizing all but the very northern parts of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.
>>According to this scheme, Wisconsin is part of the Inland Norhtern accent region which stetches from Eastern Washington State all the way to upstate New York. Closely alligned with it is Canadian English spoken on the other side of the border. <<
Yeah fucking right. The dialects spoken in Washington are far closer to California English than to the English over here in Wisconsin, as they share things like various vowel raising phenomena which do not occur here with it, for starters, and the NCVS, which practically defines the vowel systems of dialects in much of the Upper Midwest, peters out as you go west of Minnesota.
Also, as mentioned before, the father-bother merger merged to /O/ in English dialects in Canada, whereas here it merged to /A/ (which has since become /a/) in most cases (but /O/ in certain other cases). But then, Canadian English is still in some ways close to the English here, in that at least Canadian Raising for /aI/ is shared by both of them.
Oh, I forgot to mention the well-known example of the "Wisconsin 'a'", which is really the noticable shifting of historical [A] to [a] here, for which the pronunciation of the word "Wisconsin" is the prototypical case. However, most other Upper Midwesterners would most likely not notice such due to them also being affected by the NCVS as well to at least some extent.
>> The dialects spoken in Washington are far closer to California English than to the English over here in Wisconsin <<
noway. peoplo from Washington sound a lot more like people in Wisconsin, then they do to California.
noway. peoplo from Washington sound a lot more like people in Wisconsin, then they do to California.
>>noway. peoplo from Washington sound a lot more like people in Wisconsin, then they do to California.<<
For starters, do you have the NCVS there? No. That means that you have a different system of mid and low vowels in and of itself.
It seems that English in the Pacific Northwest has acquired at least some features of the California Vowel Shift, such as the lowering of [{] towards [a] (which is the opposite direction of its raising to [E{] or [e{] or in cases [E] here). Also, it has acquired "-ing" becoming /in/ as opposed to just /In/ or /IN/, which is another common feature with California English. Similarly, both are cot-caught merged, whereas only the western and northern extremes of Wisconsin have the cot-caught merger present.
As for similarities between English in Washington and Wisconsin but not California, really the only similarities that go beyond what would be present between just about any dialect that is not too far from GAE and English here would be that Washington English does have weak Canadian Raising (whereas English here has fully marked Canadian Raising for /aI/ and weak Canadian Raising for /aU/).
However, there are many other similarities between Washington and Wisconsin English, which are either things shared with GAE or are things which both them and California English share. As for things that both of them share but California English does not have, such include having a rounded /u/ rather than /M/. As for things that all three share, such include tending towards having monopthongal tense vowels rather than the diphthongal ones that have been classically found in English, and such includes low front vowel raising of some sort before at least /N/, and for Washington English, California English, and *some* Wisconsin English dialects, /g/.
So as to what you were saying, I would say that while Washington English is definitely not the same as California English, the main similarities it has with Wisconsin English and not California English are Canadian Raising and various GAE-type features which California English does not have (such as a round /u/). There are other similarities that aren't pure GAE-type features, but those are shared by all three. At the same time, Wisconsin English does have some rather marked differences from it, in particular having the NCVS, so it cannot be exactly equated with it either. Of course, then, you could say that the difference in this regard is about equal to that between Washington English and California English, the latter having the CVS but the former only having a small inkling of its influence.
Note that there are likely many other things involved here which I really have not written on (relying on, unfortunately, Wikipedia), such as mid-high back vowel fronting (which I know California English has, and the English here has only sporadically in some idiolects for /o/), the uvular rhotics used here, and the lateral vocalization present here. Note though that lateral vocalization may not be present in all of Wisconsin English, and is classically a feature of specifically Milwaukee English. As I doubt Washington English has uvular rhotics or lateral vocalization, such is a significant difference unto itself; however, as Wikipedia said nothing about such at all, I left it out above.
For starters, do you have the NCVS there? No. That means that you have a different system of mid and low vowels in and of itself.
It seems that English in the Pacific Northwest has acquired at least some features of the California Vowel Shift, such as the lowering of [{] towards [a] (which is the opposite direction of its raising to [E{] or [e{] or in cases [E] here). Also, it has acquired "-ing" becoming /in/ as opposed to just /In/ or /IN/, which is another common feature with California English. Similarly, both are cot-caught merged, whereas only the western and northern extremes of Wisconsin have the cot-caught merger present.
As for similarities between English in Washington and Wisconsin but not California, really the only similarities that go beyond what would be present between just about any dialect that is not too far from GAE and English here would be that Washington English does have weak Canadian Raising (whereas English here has fully marked Canadian Raising for /aI/ and weak Canadian Raising for /aU/).
However, there are many other similarities between Washington and Wisconsin English, which are either things shared with GAE or are things which both them and California English share. As for things that both of them share but California English does not have, such include having a rounded /u/ rather than /M/. As for things that all three share, such include tending towards having monopthongal tense vowels rather than the diphthongal ones that have been classically found in English, and such includes low front vowel raising of some sort before at least /N/, and for Washington English, California English, and *some* Wisconsin English dialects, /g/.
So as to what you were saying, I would say that while Washington English is definitely not the same as California English, the main similarities it has with Wisconsin English and not California English are Canadian Raising and various GAE-type features which California English does not have (such as a round /u/). There are other similarities that aren't pure GAE-type features, but those are shared by all three. At the same time, Wisconsin English does have some rather marked differences from it, in particular having the NCVS, so it cannot be exactly equated with it either. Of course, then, you could say that the difference in this regard is about equal to that between Washington English and California English, the latter having the CVS but the former only having a small inkling of its influence.
Note that there are likely many other things involved here which I really have not written on (relying on, unfortunately, Wikipedia), such as mid-high back vowel fronting (which I know California English has, and the English here has only sporadically in some idiolects for /o/), the uvular rhotics used here, and the lateral vocalization present here. Note though that lateral vocalization may not be present in all of Wisconsin English, and is classically a feature of specifically Milwaukee English. As I doubt Washington English has uvular rhotics or lateral vocalization, such is a significant difference unto itself; however, as Wikipedia said nothing about such at all, I left it out above.
I called up some speakers from all three places and made a chart of various words: Tobin, CA; Concrete, WA; Red Cliff, WI
Word Tobin, CA Concrete, WA Red Cliff, WI
man [me@n] [m{n] [m{n]
bet [b{t] [bEt] [bEt]
bag [bag] [beg] [beg]
beg [beg] [beg] [beg]
vague [veg] [veg] [veg]
cat [kat] [k{t] [k{t]
fight [faIt] [f@It] [f@It]
tomorrow [-Ar-] [-Or-] [-Or-]
sorry [-Ar-] [-Ar-] [-Or-]
measure [-E-] [-e-] [-e-]
think [TiNk] [TINk] [TINk]
Word Tobin, CA Concrete, WA Red Cliff, WI
man [me@n] [m{n] [m{n]
bet [b{t] [bEt] [bEt]
bag [bag] [beg] [beg]
beg [beg] [beg] [beg]
vague [veg] [veg] [veg]
cat [kat] [k{t] [k{t]
fight [faIt] [f@It] [f@It]
tomorrow [-Ar-] [-Or-] [-Or-]
sorry [-Ar-] [-Ar-] [-Or-]
measure [-E-] [-e-] [-e-]
think [TiNk] [TINk] [TINk]
Milwaukee, WI
man [mE{~:n]
bet [bE?]
bag [bE{:g_0] / sometimes [be:g_0]
beg [bE:g_0]
vague [ve:g_0]
cat [k_hE{?]
fight [f@I?]
tomorrow [-a:R-] / sometimes [-O:R-]
sorry [-o:R-] / [-O:R-] / [-A:R-] (but *not* [-a:R-])
measure [-E-] (never [-e-])
think [TI~Nk] / [t_dI~Nk]
Note though that many speakers, especially middle-aged ones, will lack word-final devoicing for stops, and thus will have [g] rather than [g_0] for "bag", "beg", and "vague", and also some will have [t] rather than [?] in "bet", "cat", and "fight".
Also note that the speech in Red Cliff, WI cannot be considered to be representative of that down in Milwaukee, WI, as Red Cliff is on the northern extreme of Wisconsin, whereas Milwaukee is close to the southern and eastern extremes of Wisconsin.
man [mE{~:n]
bet [bE?]
bag [bE{:g_0] / sometimes [be:g_0]
beg [bE:g_0]
vague [ve:g_0]
cat [k_hE{?]
fight [f@I?]
tomorrow [-a:R-] / sometimes [-O:R-]
sorry [-o:R-] / [-O:R-] / [-A:R-] (but *not* [-a:R-])
measure [-E-] (never [-e-])
think [TI~Nk] / [t_dI~Nk]
Note though that many speakers, especially middle-aged ones, will lack word-final devoicing for stops, and thus will have [g] rather than [g_0] for "bag", "beg", and "vague", and also some will have [t] rather than [?] in "bet", "cat", and "fight".
Also note that the speech in Red Cliff, WI cannot be considered to be representative of that down in Milwaukee, WI, as Red Cliff is on the northern extreme of Wisconsin, whereas Milwaukee is close to the southern and eastern extremes of Wisconsin.
<<
noway. peoplo from Washington sound a lot more like people in Wisconsin, then they do to California.>>
Overall I don't think that's true. I'm from California and the people I've met from Washington have sounded more like me than people from Wisconsin or other Upper Midwestern areas.
<<I called up some speakers from all three places and made a chart of various words: Tobin, CA; Concrete, WA; Red Cliff, WI>>
Did you just call up random people? Anyway, why Tobin? I'm not sure if a town of 11 in extreme Northeastern California (what I'd call "Or-cal") is necessarily that representative of the rest of us, but the pronunciations you describe are actually mine too so who knows.
<<Word Tobin, CA Concrete, WA Red Cliff, WI
man [me@n] [m{n] [m{n]
bet [b{t] [bEt] [bEt]
bag [bag] [beg] [beg]
beg [beg] [beg] [beg]
vague [veg] [veg] [veg]
cat [kat] [k{t] [k{t]
fight [faIt] [f@It] [f@It]
tomorrow [-Ar-] [-Or-] [-Or-]
sorry [-Ar-] [-Ar-] [-Or-]
measure [-E-] [-e-] [-e-]
think [TiNk] [TINk] [TINk] >>
Yeah those California ones represent my pronunciations tho not always to those extremes. For instance, my "bet" may often have a lowered [E] but it doesn't always reach [{]. Similarly, my normal realization of "man" isn't [me@n] but [m{n], even tho I have realized [e@] is possible for me there.
noway. peoplo from Washington sound a lot more like people in Wisconsin, then they do to California.>>
Overall I don't think that's true. I'm from California and the people I've met from Washington have sounded more like me than people from Wisconsin or other Upper Midwestern areas.
<<I called up some speakers from all three places and made a chart of various words: Tobin, CA; Concrete, WA; Red Cliff, WI>>
Did you just call up random people? Anyway, why Tobin? I'm not sure if a town of 11 in extreme Northeastern California (what I'd call "Or-cal") is necessarily that representative of the rest of us, but the pronunciations you describe are actually mine too so who knows.
<<Word Tobin, CA Concrete, WA Red Cliff, WI
man [me@n] [m{n] [m{n]
bet [b{t] [bEt] [bEt]
bag [bag] [beg] [beg]
beg [beg] [beg] [beg]
vague [veg] [veg] [veg]
cat [kat] [k{t] [k{t]
fight [faIt] [f@It] [f@It]
tomorrow [-Ar-] [-Or-] [-Or-]
sorry [-Ar-] [-Ar-] [-Or-]
measure [-E-] [-e-] [-e-]
think [TiNk] [TINk] [TINk] >>
Yeah those California ones represent my pronunciations tho not always to those extremes. For instance, my "bet" may often have a lowered [E] but it doesn't always reach [{]. Similarly, my normal realization of "man" isn't [me@n] but [m{n], even tho I have realized [e@] is possible for me there.
I also find it interesting that "Guest" chose Red Cliff, WI, as such is unlikely to be particularly representative of English in Wisconsin due to its position. Actually, speech there is likely to be closer to that of northern Minnesota than that of southeastern (including Milwaukee area) and southwestern (including Madison area) Wisconsin, which include the largest population centers in Wisconsin. Probably the biggest factor with such is that such likely is outside the reach of the NCVS, and such also likely is cot-caught merged as well, unlike the more southern and eastern portions of Wisconsin.
However, the English of Milwaukee, WI is not necessarily representative of the rest of Wisconsin either, since some features, such as lateral vocalization, are likely relatively restricted to it or the greater area around it, people from said area who have moved elsewhere aside.
However, the English of Milwaukee, WI is not necessarily representative of the rest of Wisconsin either, since some features, such as lateral vocalization, are likely relatively restricted to it or the greater area around it, people from said area who have moved elsewhere aside.
Hmm. Concrete, WA, huh? I'm not sure if a sleepy little town of 600 by the Canadian border is the best example of the accent here in Washington. ;) But I suppose it's better than Tobin, CA with it's huge population of 11 (8 males; 3 females). lol. ( http://www.idcide.com/citydata/ca/tobin.htm ). In Seattle, at least, we don't have any sort of accent at all. I've never heard anyone around pronounce think as "tink". Maybe the person you called was not a native speaker? I saw some funny symbols in some of those above. Maybe my fonts aren't working. Here's how I pronounce those words:
man [man]
bet [bet]
bag [bayg]
beg [beg]
vague [vayg]
cat [cat]
faight [fite]
tomorrow [tuh-moh-rroh]
sorry [saree]
measure [mesure]
think [think]
man [man]
bet [bet]
bag [bayg]
beg [beg]
vague [vayg]
cat [cat]
faight [fite]
tomorrow [tuh-moh-rroh]
sorry [saree]
measure [mesure]
think [think]
>>I've never heard anyone around pronounce think as "tink". Maybe the person you called was not a native speaker?<<
"Tink" would be [t_hI~Nk] not [t_dI~Nk]; note that [t_h] is alveolar and aspirated, whereas [t_d] is dental and unaspirated. [t_h] and [t_d] are phonemically contrastive here, corresponding to /t/ and /T/ respectively (as will [n] and [n_d], corresponding to /n/ and /T/ respectively, actually). Also note that, at least here, [t_d] is likely to be perceived almost more like /d/ than /t/ due to its unaspiratedness.
Also note that that speaker is not someone I called but rather myself, but it is not just some idiosyncretic feature of my own idiolect, considering that I regularly hear others who use the same realization of /T/ word-initially as well. And this is just Milwaukee; Up North they very often have interdental hardnening that is much more extensive than ours down here (which is limited to word-initial positions and the word "with", besides words where it is common throughout NAE as a whole, such as "month").
>>I saw some funny symbols in some of those above.<<
The symbol "~" indicates nasalization of what it follows. The symbol ":" indicates that what it follows is long (in actual realization) rather than short.
"Tink" would be [t_hI~Nk] not [t_dI~Nk]; note that [t_h] is alveolar and aspirated, whereas [t_d] is dental and unaspirated. [t_h] and [t_d] are phonemically contrastive here, corresponding to /t/ and /T/ respectively (as will [n] and [n_d], corresponding to /n/ and /T/ respectively, actually). Also note that, at least here, [t_d] is likely to be perceived almost more like /d/ than /t/ due to its unaspiratedness.
Also note that that speaker is not someone I called but rather myself, but it is not just some idiosyncretic feature of my own idiolect, considering that I regularly hear others who use the same realization of /T/ word-initially as well. And this is just Milwaukee; Up North they very often have interdental hardnening that is much more extensive than ours down here (which is limited to word-initial positions and the word "with", besides words where it is common throughout NAE as a whole, such as "month").
>>I saw some funny symbols in some of those above.<<
The symbol "~" indicates nasalization of what it follows. The symbol ":" indicates that what it follows is long (in actual realization) rather than short.
Note, though, that most here who use [t_d], myself included, alternate it with with [T] or [t_dT], rather than consistently using it across all registers and levels of stress, hence why I marked both the use of [T] and [t_d] in my transcriptions. I should also have marked the use of [t_dT], which is what many cases of what people would transcribe as [T] in word-initial positions here, as well above.
<<I've never heard anyone around pronounce think as "tink". Maybe the person you called was not a native speaker?>
If you're referring to the Washington speaker, then I think you've misinterpreted the symbols being used. In the X-SAMPA phonetic script, a capital T, as in [TINk], represents a "th-sound" (a voiceless interdental fricative).
If you're referring to the Washington speaker, then I think you've misinterpreted the symbols being used. In the X-SAMPA phonetic script, a capital T, as in [TINk], represents a "th-sound" (a voiceless interdental fricative).
<<n Seattle, at least, we don't have any sort of accent at all.>>
Everyone has an accent. Even people from Seattle. :) In fact, I have a friend from Seattle who has many of your pronunciations (what I could guess from them giving your faux-netic transcriptions) which are different from the ones here. It gives him a slightly different, if still noticeable accent. For instance, he rhymes "vague" and "bag," which people here in California don't. Here "bag" has the same vowel as "tab" and "cat."
<<II've never heard anyone around pronounce think as "tink". Maybe the person you called was not a native speaker? I saw some funny symbols in some of those above.>>
People here are using X-SAMPA, a common way of transcribing the International Phonetic Alphabet without needing a special font. In X-SAMPA the symbol [T] represents an unvoiced interdental fricative as is found in the word "thought" or "thin." The sound in, say, the word "tinker" uses [t_h], which is an unvoiced alveolar stop followed by a puff of aspiration.
<<man [man]
bet [bet]
bag [bayg]
beg [beg]
vague [vayg]
cat [cat]
faight [fite]
tomorrow [tuh-moh-rroh]
sorry [saree]
measure [mesure]
think [think]>>
I kind of know what you mean there but be aware those are not true phonetic transcriptions, but at best faux-netic ones based off of orthography (so they can be given different values depending upon who looks at them). If you're curious about learning more about IPA and especially X-SAMPA I wrote up a little tutorial explaining the basics of phonetic transcription here:
http://www.langcafe.net/viewtopic.php?t=278
Everyone has an accent. Even people from Seattle. :) In fact, I have a friend from Seattle who has many of your pronunciations (what I could guess from them giving your faux-netic transcriptions) which are different from the ones here. It gives him a slightly different, if still noticeable accent. For instance, he rhymes "vague" and "bag," which people here in California don't. Here "bag" has the same vowel as "tab" and "cat."
<<II've never heard anyone around pronounce think as "tink". Maybe the person you called was not a native speaker? I saw some funny symbols in some of those above.>>
People here are using X-SAMPA, a common way of transcribing the International Phonetic Alphabet without needing a special font. In X-SAMPA the symbol [T] represents an unvoiced interdental fricative as is found in the word "thought" or "thin." The sound in, say, the word "tinker" uses [t_h], which is an unvoiced alveolar stop followed by a puff of aspiration.
<<man [man]
bet [bet]
bag [bayg]
beg [beg]
vague [vayg]
cat [cat]
faight [fite]
tomorrow [tuh-moh-rroh]
sorry [saree]
measure [mesure]
think [think]>>
I kind of know what you mean there but be aware those are not true phonetic transcriptions, but at best faux-netic ones based off of orthography (so they can be given different values depending upon who looks at them). If you're curious about learning more about IPA and especially X-SAMPA I wrote up a little tutorial explaining the basics of phonetic transcription here:
http://www.langcafe.net/viewtopic.php?t=278