Clarification about a Canadian accent

Travis   Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:16 pm GMT
>>I am curious about what you said about lateral consonants, Travis. Are you trying to say dark L is disappearing where you are? If so, what is it being replaced by? Is it at all similar to how, for instance, "milk" tends to be pronounced by Londoners?<<

Yes, my dialect is losing lateral consonants, has already lost the dark 'l' [5], and has long since lost the light 'l' [l], which was replaced altogether by the dark 'l' [5] before it, too, was lost. They are being replaced by [M\], [M_^], and [M], and due to rounding assimilation as [U_^] and [U] as well. In careful speech I do tend to retain a lateral in morpheme-initial positions, which is something like [L\] or [M\L\], but such is not exactly stable in nature, and tends to easily become [M\] in less careful speech. Most other people here are also like that, in that they can pronounce a lateral consonant in such positions when they really try to, usually to try to emphasize the particular phoneme /l/ so as to help people understand them, but most of time their speech has very weak laterals if they have them at all.

[M\] tends to be found for prevocalic and intervocalic /l/, including across word boundaries, particularly in more careful speech. [M_^] tends to be found for non-morpheme-initial prevocalic and intervocalic /l/ in less careful speech and postvocalic /l/ in practically all but the most careful speech. [M] is found for syllabic /l/, but when such is followed by another vowel such tends to often show up as [MM\], particularly in more careful speech. However, when postvocalic and intervocalic /l/ follow a rounded vowel they are realized as [U_^] instead, and when syllabic /l/ follows /w/ it becomes [U].

There are some complexities to such, though, because [M_^] and [U_^] from postvocalic /l/ tend to be very strongly backed in nature in more careful speech, but in less careful speech they tend to be fronted somewhat to positions more like that of [o] and [u] in my dialect, especially in the case of the sequence /old/. This has had the result of [o] and [oU_^] becoming distinctive in my dialect (as earlier Late New English [oU_^] became [o] in my dialect previously), especially in the case of /od/ versus /old/ in informal speech, where the two become quite close together but remain distinctive.
Cam   Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:37 am GMT
As for Nelly Furtado
too bad she's not using her Canadian accent...
In Canadian English words like NOT and LOST have the same vowel...(Like in California). In the song SAY IT RIGHT, she pronounced NOT as NAHT, but LOST as LAWST...Very NewYorkish

''not lost [nAt lQst]''...very strange for a Canadian
it should be either [nAt lAst] or [nQt lQst]
Travis   Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:57 am GMT
You do realize that it would not be inconceivable for a Canadian to not be entirely consistent with the degree of the Canadian Vowel Shift in their speech, especially considering that Canadian English generally retains [A] in formal speech, do you?
Dan   Sat Aug 04, 2007 2:43 am GMT
If one was to say that Canadians said aboot instead of about, their statement would almost be as flase and ignorant as Pierre's.
Dan   Sat Aug 04, 2007 2:46 am GMT
Because Pierre is an ignorant red neck.
Guest   Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:43 am GMT
Canadian saying ABOUT does sound, at least to a foreign ear,like saying A BOAT. Some speakers have very obvious Canadian raising, while some have very slight raising...In many speakers from British Columbia, this raising is absent.