That last post wasn't by me.
'inner' vs. 'inter-' (American English)
One fascinating thing is that in rapid speech, I often simplify the [Nk] in "think". For instance, I might pronounce "I think it's gonna rain" as [aI TIN Its gVn@ r\eIn]. This [Nk] simplification seems to be limited to the word "think", though. For example, if I was saying "Hank is gonna reign", I would say [heINk Iz gVn@ r\eIn].
I think people tend to get lazy and drop sounds in common words that they know will be understood anyway, but preserve the same sounds in less common words, especially if dropping them might cause confusion.
I take back my previous comment about "into", as I rechecked right now, and yes, the stress is on the second syllable in it in my dialect, so hence it is consistent with the normal handling of /nt/ inmy English dialect after all.
<<I take back my previous comment about "into", as I rechecked right now, and yes, the stress is on the second syllable in it in my dialect, so hence it is consistent with the normal handling of /nt/ inmy English dialect after all.>>
That's interesting...the stress is always on the first syllable for me.
By the way, does anyone else have the /Nk/-->[N] reduction that I mentioned in my previous post? I've checked, and I *only* have that in the word "think".
That's interesting...the stress is always on the first syllable for me.
By the way, does anyone else have the /Nk/-->[N] reduction that I mentioned in my previous post? I've checked, and I *only* have that in the word "think".
Actually, it seems like either the stress can be distinctly on the second syllable of "into", or it can be on the first syllable, actually resulting in two generally different pronunciations:
/In"tu/ -> [I~n.t_hu]
/"Intu/ -> ["I~.4~u] or ["I~.4~@]
In formal speech, /In"tu/ seems predominant here, whereas in informal speech, /"Intu/ seems to be the primary pronunciation except when speaking emphatically.
/In"tu/ -> [I~n.t_hu]
/"Intu/ -> ["I~.4~u] or ["I~.4~@]
In formal speech, /In"tu/ seems predominant here, whereas in informal speech, /"Intu/ seems to be the primary pronunciation except when speaking emphatically.
In my dialect, the second syllable of "into" is never stressed in any speech register.
I again take back my taking back... it seems that in formal speech the stress is still on the first syllable *but* there is still [t_h] in the second syllable, which must then just be an artifact of "careful speech" more than anything else. /me smacks his forehead a few times in a row...
<<One interesting thing is that I seem to have much more progressive assimilation of final /nt/ clusters than of word-medial ones.>>
For the most part, it seems that English unlike say German is completely immune to any notion of "word boundary". A lot of processes, even ones that appear to change phonemes around, seem to occur after words have been strung together. e.g. Dark vs light L in those British dialects which make a distinction; L vocalisation in at least British dialects; conservative-style non-rhoticism (when R is re-inserted before words that start in vowels; tho not the sort that I do, in which an R is used to avoid hiatus after phonemically pure vowels); flapping of T's and D's etc. etc. etc.
So that doesn't really seem very surprising.
For the most part, it seems that English unlike say German is completely immune to any notion of "word boundary". A lot of processes, even ones that appear to change phonemes around, seem to occur after words have been strung together. e.g. Dark vs light L in those British dialects which make a distinction; L vocalisation in at least British dialects; conservative-style non-rhoticism (when R is re-inserted before words that start in vowels; tho not the sort that I do, in which an R is used to avoid hiatus after phonemically pure vowels); flapping of T's and D's etc. etc. etc.
So that doesn't really seem very surprising.
"I think people tend to get lazy and drop sounds in common words..."
It has nothing to do with being "lazy," a word which should be banned from any serious study of language change. There seems to be an almost natural tendency to smooth out the stops to the flow of speech over time (that's why Latin "oct-" has become "ott-" in Italian.
What I find interesting about "interesting" (ha!) is the different way in which AE and BE have smoothed it out. The tendency in AE seems to be towards "inner-esting" while BE appears to opt for "in-tresting."
It has nothing to do with being "lazy," a word which should be banned from any serious study of language change. There seems to be an almost natural tendency to smooth out the stops to the flow of speech over time (that's why Latin "oct-" has become "ott-" in Italian.
What I find interesting about "interesting" (ha!) is the different way in which AE and BE have smoothed it out. The tendency in AE seems to be towards "inner-esting" while BE appears to opt for "in-tresting."
>>What I find interesting about "interesting" (ha!) is the different way in which AE and BE have smoothed it out. The tendency in AE seems to be towards "inner-esting" while BE appears to opt for "in-tresting."<<
With respect to this example, one must remember though that there are definitely a good many NAE dialects which use "in-tresting", such as my own. Of course, my dialect seems more likely than many other NAE dialects to prefer collapsing historical /@`/ after various stops into /r/.
With respect to this example, one must remember though that there are definitely a good many NAE dialects which use "in-tresting", such as my own. Of course, my dialect seems more likely than many other NAE dialects to prefer collapsing historical /@`/ after various stops into /r/.
"[O]ne must remember though that there are definitely a good many NAE dialects which use 'in-tresting'..."
I don't disagree at all. Indeed, this is how I say the word (I'm Canadian). I was making a very generalized observation.
I don't disagree at all. Indeed, this is how I say the word (I'm Canadian). I was making a very generalized observation.
Yes, while /nt/ to [n] is quite common in my dialect, in "interesting" I always have ["IntSr\IstiN] (INTCH-riss-teeng" if we're using English pseudo-phonetic spelling).
<<It has nothing to do with being "lazy," a word which should be banned from any serious study of language change. There seems to be an almost natural tendency to smooth out the stops to the flow of speech over time (that's why Latin "oct-" has become "ott-" in Italian.>>
Yes, Uriel I know you're not that into linguistics but there's no such thing as being "lazy" in a language :) Sounds change, disappear, and appear, but it's not due to laziness or lack of laziness. Interestingly, sounds which replace other sounds are often equal in terms of articulatory effort or even more so (some are simpler, however). For instance, take German "Pflicht." I won't go into gory detail, but before a specific sound change affecting German long ago, it was originally /pl-/, not /pfl-/, from Proto-Germanic *pleg- (English still has the /pl-/ in its version of the word, "plight"). One could reasonably argue that the new sound in German actually got *more* complicated than it originally was. However, this wasn't due to German speakers being particularly "unlazy"--it was just a random change that caught on.
Similarly, while glottal stop has replaced [t] in many positions in some varieties of Southern British English, it's not because people are "lazy" but because a new sound has been spreading. Articulatorily, I've read glottal stops actually require more effort than producing [t].
<<It has nothing to do with being "lazy," a word which should be banned from any serious study of language change. There seems to be an almost natural tendency to smooth out the stops to the flow of speech over time (that's why Latin "oct-" has become "ott-" in Italian.>>
Yes, Uriel I know you're not that into linguistics but there's no such thing as being "lazy" in a language :) Sounds change, disappear, and appear, but it's not due to laziness or lack of laziness. Interestingly, sounds which replace other sounds are often equal in terms of articulatory effort or even more so (some are simpler, however). For instance, take German "Pflicht." I won't go into gory detail, but before a specific sound change affecting German long ago, it was originally /pl-/, not /pfl-/, from Proto-Germanic *pleg- (English still has the /pl-/ in its version of the word, "plight"). One could reasonably argue that the new sound in German actually got *more* complicated than it originally was. However, this wasn't due to German speakers being particularly "unlazy"--it was just a random change that caught on.
Similarly, while glottal stop has replaced [t] in many positions in some varieties of Southern British English, it's not because people are "lazy" but because a new sound has been spreading. Articulatorily, I've read glottal stops actually require more effort than producing [t].
Well, you all may take offense to the term lazy, and I won't dispute you on a linguistics level, but that's what I consider MYSELF to be when I say things quickly with crappy enunciation -- just lazy, sloppy, in a hurry, not paying attention, etc. Sorry if it bothers you; I don't know the "proper" linguistic term for that practice.
<<Well, you all may take offense to the term lazy,>>
Nah, it'd take a lot more than that to get me offended :) --it's just an inaccurate term if you're describing linguistic phenomena (I know you're not a linguist but you *were* in fact talking linguistic phenomena so bringing this up is relevant).
<<and I won't dispute you on a linguistics level, but that's what I consider MYSELF to be when I say things quickly with crappy enunciation -- just lazy, sloppy, in a hurry, not paying attention, etc. Sorry if it bothers you; I don't know the "proper" linguistic term for that practice.>>
There's no such thing as being "sloppy" or having "crappy" enunciation either :) Everyday informal speech styles are the way the vast majority of humanity speaks for the vast majority of every day.
Nah, it'd take a lot more than that to get me offended :) --it's just an inaccurate term if you're describing linguistic phenomena (I know you're not a linguist but you *were* in fact talking linguistic phenomena so bringing this up is relevant).
<<and I won't dispute you on a linguistics level, but that's what I consider MYSELF to be when I say things quickly with crappy enunciation -- just lazy, sloppy, in a hurry, not paying attention, etc. Sorry if it bothers you; I don't know the "proper" linguistic term for that practice.>>
There's no such thing as being "sloppy" or having "crappy" enunciation either :) Everyday informal speech styles are the way the vast majority of humanity speaks for the vast majority of every day.