Does anyone here have vehicle-smoothing?
Vehicle-smoothing
I have ["vi:.I.k5=]. All the British dictionaries that I've seen list only the unsmoothed pronunciation, but I've read that there are some British speakers who have much more extensive smoothing than what's listed in today's dictionaries - for example, in words like "mower" and "Malaya". So I think some speakers probably would have smoothing in "vehicle".
Also of note is the pronunciation of "vehicle" by some North Americans - I think mostly in the Southern US - as something like ["vi:%hIk5=].
Also of note is the pronunciation of "vehicle" by some North Americans - I think mostly in the Southern US - as something like ["vi:%hIk5=].
<<in words like "mower">>
I have [mOr\] for "mower" and I'm American, not British.
I have [mOr\] for "mower" and I'm American, not British.
Vehicle-smoothing would be the compression, or smoothing, of the bisyllabic sequence [i.@] in "vehicle" into a centering diphthong [I@]. In faux-netic British English, I suppose this could be rendered as "veerkel".
In modern RP - as defined by today's British dictionaries - this kind of smoothing only occurs, to my knowledge, in the words "idea" (and derivatives), "real" (and derivatives), and "theatre", but not in "vehicle".
In modern RP - as defined by today's British dictionaries - this kind of smoothing only occurs, to my knowledge, in the words "idea" (and derivatives), "real" (and derivatives), and "theatre", but not in "vehicle".
(I probably should have written [i.I] for that sequence in my last post.)
<<I have [mOr\] for "mower" and I'm American, not British.>>
The kind of smoothing that I was thinking about was from RP ["m@U.@] to something like ["m3@]; but yes, I think what you have could be called smoothing as well.
<<I have [mOr\] for "mower" and I'm American, not British.>>
The kind of smoothing that I was thinking about was from RP ["m@U.@] to something like ["m3@]; but yes, I think what you have could be called smoothing as well.
Now that I think about it, all of the other instances of smoothing that I've heard about ("idea", "theater", "mower", "Malaya") seem to involve a schwa as the second vowel, whereas "vehicle" tends to have [I] in the second syllable for most speakers. So maybe this would inhibit smoothing in "vehicle" for speakers who otherwise have quite progressive smoothing?
<<"idea" (and derivatives), "real" (and derivatives), and "theatre">>
Those actually have three different vowels for me.
"idea" [aIdI@]
"real" [rI5]
"theater" [Ti:I4=r\]
Those actually have three different vowels for me.
"idea" [aIdI@]
"real" [rI5]
"theater" [Ti:I4=r\]
Yeah, "real" seems to be an especially variable word. I think originally it had ["ri.@5], which, at least in traditional RP, got smoothed to ["r\I@5] and remained distinct from "reel" ["ri:5]. In American English, most speakers have come to use a monosyllabic pronunciation like ["ri:5] or ["r\I5]. I've read that a lot of British English speakers today (perhaps most) now pronounce "real" homophonous with "reel".
Myself, I have:
idea [aI"di:.@] or [aI"dI@], sort of variable
real ["r\i:5]
theater ["Ti:.@.4@`]
Myself, I have:
idea [aI"di:.@] or [aI"dI@], sort of variable
real ["r\i:5]
theater ["Ti:.@.4@`]
>><<in words like "mower">>
I have [mOr\] for "mower" and I'm American, not British.<<
I have such smoothing, but only in certain circumstances which does not include "mower". It only occurs when an intervocalic obstruent is elided before /@r/, /@l/, /@n/, or /@m/. In everyday speech very often the resulting sound is nonsyllabic (rather than syllabic as usual) and rather the vowel preceding the elided consonant is lengthened. If the elided obstruent is fortis the resulting vowel is long; if the elided obstruent is lenis the resulting vowel is overlong. It results in pronunciations such as:
"what're" [wV:R]
"over" [o::R]
"water" [wQ:R]
"matter" [mE{:R]
"rather" [RE{::R]
"that'll" [DE{:M] or [dE{:M]
"middle" [mI::M]
"little" [M\I:M]
"fiddle" [fI::M]
"metal' [mE:M]
"redden" [RE~::n]
"hidden" [hI~::n]
(For some reasons I cannot think of any examples ending in /@m/, even though they certainly exist.)
I have [mOr\] for "mower" and I'm American, not British.<<
I have such smoothing, but only in certain circumstances which does not include "mower". It only occurs when an intervocalic obstruent is elided before /@r/, /@l/, /@n/, or /@m/. In everyday speech very often the resulting sound is nonsyllabic (rather than syllabic as usual) and rather the vowel preceding the elided consonant is lengthened. If the elided obstruent is fortis the resulting vowel is long; if the elided obstruent is lenis the resulting vowel is overlong. It results in pronunciations such as:
"what're" [wV:R]
"over" [o::R]
"water" [wQ:R]
"matter" [mE{:R]
"rather" [RE{::R]
"that'll" [DE{:M] or [dE{:M]
"middle" [mI::M]
"little" [M\I:M]
"fiddle" [fI::M]
"metal' [mE:M]
"redden" [RE~::n]
"hidden" [hI~::n]
(For some reasons I cannot think of any examples ending in /@m/, even though they certainly exist.)
>>Yeah, "real" seems to be an especially variable word. I think originally it had ["ri.@5], which, at least in traditional RP, got smoothed to ["r\I@5] and remained distinct from "reel" ["ri:5]. In American English, most speakers have come to use a monosyllabic pronunciation like ["ri:5] or ["r\I5]. I've read that a lot of British English speakers today (perhaps most) now pronounce "real" homophonous with "reel".<<
The dialect here actually does not merge "real" and "reel" when in careful speech and when otherwise stressed, distinguishing them as [Ri:M:] and [Ri:M_^], but in unstressed everyday speech inconsistently merges them as [Ri:M_^].
The dialect here actually does not merge "real" and "reel" when in careful speech and when otherwise stressed, distinguishing them as [Ri:M:] and [Ri:M_^], but in unstressed everyday speech inconsistently merges them as [Ri:M_^].