Like most Americans, I don't generally pronounce a [j] after coronals where it was historically present. However, there are a few words in which I do; 'Tuesday' and 'during' are the only ones that come to mind right now. For both these words, I also have yod-coalescence, so they are: [t_Suzde] and [d_Z3`IN]. Anyone else have these pronunciations, or know why I would?
Yod-dropping
>>Like most Americans, I don't generally pronounce a [j] after coronals where it was historically present. However, there are a few words in which I do; 'Tuesday' and 'during' are the only ones that come to mind right now. For both these words, I also have yod-coalescence, so they are: [t_Suzde] and [d_Z3`IN]. Anyone else have these pronunciations, or know why I would?<<
I don't think this is related to yod-dropping but rather is an entirely separate phenomenon. What is going on is the palatalization and or affrication of /t/ and, on a lesser basis, /d/ before /u/, /U/, /w/, and /@r/ in stressed syllables.
Such is probably best known here from a rather infamous local lawyer's commercial in which the word "twenty" is repeated a number of times as ["tS_hwV~:ni:] in a very annoying fashion. This particular case was much stronger than most cases in the affrication present and probably is atypical for most of the dialects in this region.
However, palatalization (to a postalveolar POA) and or slight affrication of /t/ (to something like an apical or weakly laminal [tS] with a rather short period of frication) seems to actually be quite common in such environments here (and seemingly in NAE in general from hearing such in media content). Additionally, I myself have sporadic pronunciation of stressed /d@r/ as [dZR=] and frequently hear some others here (such as my girlfriend) also use similar pronunciations as well.
I don't think this is related to yod-dropping but rather is an entirely separate phenomenon. What is going on is the palatalization and or affrication of /t/ and, on a lesser basis, /d/ before /u/, /U/, /w/, and /@r/ in stressed syllables.
Such is probably best known here from a rather infamous local lawyer's commercial in which the word "twenty" is repeated a number of times as ["tS_hwV~:ni:] in a very annoying fashion. This particular case was much stronger than most cases in the affrication present and probably is atypical for most of the dialects in this region.
However, palatalization (to a postalveolar POA) and or slight affrication of /t/ (to something like an apical or weakly laminal [tS] with a rather short period of frication) seems to actually be quite common in such environments here (and seemingly in NAE in general from hearing such in media content). Additionally, I myself have sporadic pronunciation of stressed /d@r/ as [dZR=] and frequently hear some others here (such as my girlfriend) also use similar pronunciations as well.
yod-dropping is not considered classy
in refined speech, yod is used: ''nyoo york''
in refined speech, yod is used: ''nyoo york''
>>yod-dropping is not considered classy
in refined speech, yod is used: ''nyoo york''<<
You do realize that yod-dropping is standard in North American English today, do you?
in refined speech, yod is used: ''nyoo york''<<
You do realize that yod-dropping is standard in North American English today, do you?
<<I don't think this is related to yod-dropping but rather is an entirely separate phenomenon. What is going on is the palatalization and or affrication of /t/ and, on a lesser basis, /d/ before /u/, /U/, /w/, and /@r/ in stressed syllables. >>
That's interesting, because I can't think of any other words that have this. Words like tuna, tumor, durable, etc. that might have had it by those rules do not. 'Twenty' certainly would not, though that word also has an interesting pronunciation here. In casual speech, it is often [tw@4_~i] with the historic [nt] cluster reduced to a nasalized tap. This also occurs in words like 'winter' [wi4_~@`] and famously, 'Toronto', which may be reduced to [t_Sr\A4_~@]. The vowel before the nasalized tap is usually nasalized as well. (I actually don't use these forms very often, but some people here do.)
That's interesting, because I can't think of any other words that have this. Words like tuna, tumor, durable, etc. that might have had it by those rules do not. 'Twenty' certainly would not, though that word also has an interesting pronunciation here. In casual speech, it is often [tw@4_~i] with the historic [nt] cluster reduced to a nasalized tap. This also occurs in words like 'winter' [wi4_~@`] and famously, 'Toronto', which may be reduced to [t_Sr\A4_~@]. The vowel before the nasalized tap is usually nasalized as well. (I actually don't use these forms very often, but some people here do.)
>>That's interesting, because I can't think of any other words that have this. Words like tuna, tumor, durable, etc. that might have had it by those rules do not. 'Twenty' certainly would not, though that word also has an interesting pronunciation here. In casual speech, it is often [tw@4_~i] with the historic [nt] cluster reduced to a nasalized tap. This also occurs in words like 'winter' [wi4_~@`] and famously, 'Toronto', which may be reduced to [t_Sr\A4_~@]. The vowel before the nasalized tap is usually nasalized as well. (I actually don't use these forms very often, but some people here do.)<<
Mind you that such is not necessarily consistent or noticable. For instance, my realization of /d@r/ as [dZR=] is highly sporadic and does not show up in formal speech, while in most cases my realization of /t/ is only weakly palatalized and not affricated, and even when it is affricated it is something along the lines of [ts)_-].
As for what you are referring to with words like "twenty", "Toronto", and "winter" is a whole nother matter, being simply the regular realization of intervocalic /nt/ before an unstressed vowel as [4~]; this kind of realization is very common in NAE dialects, even though some may use [n] rather than [4~].
Mind you that such is not necessarily consistent or noticable. For instance, my realization of /d@r/ as [dZR=] is highly sporadic and does not show up in formal speech, while in most cases my realization of /t/ is only weakly palatalized and not affricated, and even when it is affricated it is something along the lines of [ts)_-].
As for what you are referring to with words like "twenty", "Toronto", and "winter" is a whole nother matter, being simply the regular realization of intervocalic /nt/ before an unstressed vowel as [4~]; this kind of realization is very common in NAE dialects, even though some may use [n] rather than [4~].
I just find it interesting that NAE has developed a sound that I've never heard of in any other language.
Back to yod-dropping. I was reading last week about New York English, and the book mentioned that "cultivated" speakers (it was an old book) pronounce some words with a diphthong instead of dropping the yod altogether, for example 'new' [nIu]. This pronunciation seems to be the preferred one on CBC (Canada's public radio). I don't consistently produce this sound in historically 'yod' words, but I think some people do. There are others that use a similar diphthong for all instances of /u/, but I suspect that's due to a vowel shift rather than hypercorrection of yod-dropping. My situation is a little more variable, with [u] generally for /u/, but [Iu] for some historic /ju/ sequences, especially in formal or careful speech. This doesn't seem to occur after stops, but /n/, /s/, and /l/ can all have it. As I said before, though, it is not consistent.
Back to yod-dropping. I was reading last week about New York English, and the book mentioned that "cultivated" speakers (it was an old book) pronounce some words with a diphthong instead of dropping the yod altogether, for example 'new' [nIu]. This pronunciation seems to be the preferred one on CBC (Canada's public radio). I don't consistently produce this sound in historically 'yod' words, but I think some people do. There are others that use a similar diphthong for all instances of /u/, but I suspect that's due to a vowel shift rather than hypercorrection of yod-dropping. My situation is a little more variable, with [u] generally for /u/, but [Iu] for some historic /ju/ sequences, especially in formal or careful speech. This doesn't seem to occur after stops, but /n/, /s/, and /l/ can all have it. As I said before, though, it is not consistent.
I read on Wikipedia that the [Iu] form also occurs in Southern American English.
yod-sounding sound can be found in WesternUSEnglish because of the U fronting: nyew--> new--> nyew
>> yod-sounding sound can be found in WesternUSEnglish because of the U fronting: nyew--> new--> nyew <<
Nah, the fronting doesn't sound much like a yod.
Nah, the fronting doesn't sound much like a yod.
I can understand why u-fronting might sound like a yod. As Guest said [nju]-->[nu]-->[nIu] can sound like a return of the yod, and in the Southern US, yod is often pronounced like that.
I suppose someone who has [Iu] for /ju/ and l-vocalisation might pronounce have homophones for 'suit' and 'silt' or 'due' and 'dill' or 'stew' and 'still'. Interesting. Could make it easier to find rhymes.
>>I suppose someone who has [Iu] for /ju/ and l-vocalisation might pronounce have homophones for 'suit' and 'silt' or 'due' and 'dill' or 'stew' and 'still'. Interesting. Could make it easier to find rhymes.<<
My own dialect has l-vocalization, and yet this kind of thing would not work, due to its vocalizing to [M] rather than some rounded vowel like [u] except in informal speech after rounded vowels, where it may then vocalize to [U]. While I do not have yods in your examples. (Note that said [M] and [U] are offglides aside from normal cases of syllabic /l/, where only [M] is found).
My own dialect has l-vocalization, and yet this kind of thing would not work, due to its vocalizing to [M] rather than some rounded vowel like [u] except in informal speech after rounded vowels, where it may then vocalize to [U]. While I do not have yods in your examples. (Note that said [M] and [U] are offglides aside from normal cases of syllabic /l/, where only [M] is found).
I don't stick an unnecessary Y into any word at all. Not Tuesday, not new, not during, not any of them.
The weird thing about the Y-after-T deal is that it often turns the T into a CH -- I remember watching an Animal Planet program about an English donkey named (inexplicably) Chew-lip; it took me a good 10 minutes to realize they were calling her TULIP, as in the flower!
The weird thing about the Y-after-T deal is that it often turns the T into a CH -- I remember watching an Animal Planet program about an English donkey named (inexplicably) Chew-lip; it took me a good 10 minutes to realize they were calling her TULIP, as in the flower!
>>I don't stick an unnecessary Y into any word at all.<<
That's what you think. But in speech for example "don't you" often becomes one word: "donchyew". And "what you" ~ "whachew".
That's what you think. But in speech for example "don't you" often becomes one word: "donchyew". And "what you" ~ "whachew".