Wikipedia

Talk:General American English/Archive 4

< Talk:General American English
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Mr KEBAB in topic /t/-glottalization
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Canadian raising of äɪ to ʌɪ

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

I have a doubt whether Canadian raising actually would raise the diphthong [äɪ] to [ʌɪ]. The vowel [ʌ] is pronounced too far back in the mouth. Could anybody verify this claim? I don't need a source, only somebody's word. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's audio recording for [ʌ] sounds right to me, as does the audio recording for [ə], and possibly [ɐ]. [ɜ] sounds a little wrong to me. This is just my own perception of the Wikipedia audio recordings. Wolfdog (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, sir. I am little confused. I fail to see the relevancy of the audios. Could you please elaborate? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The vowels I mentioned all sound right to me as the nucleus for Canadian-raised /äɪ/ in the U.S. Wolfdog (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you lost me for a second there. Thank you, sir.LakeKayak (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: When referring to the audio for [ʌ], which audio are you talking about? I'm a little confused. Do you mean the audio on this page for [ʌ~ɐ] or the audio [ʌ] on IPA vowel chart with audio. I can see the former as the nucleus for the raised [äɪ] more than the latter.LakeKayak (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the page you just shared has audio from a Canadian user uploading sounds. There are numerous linguists that put Canadian English in a different umbrella than any american english. Some of his sounds can still be found on this page for general american pronunciations. This page does say that canadian english "arguably" falls under general american. I'm on the disagreement side of this, personally. Accent coach Claudette Roche has said Canadians and Americans have different vowels. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10151861837052908&id=124536002907 Obviously, there are going to be contradictions here and there on any wikipedia page (which is why I never though of removing a couple of that users sound files from this page). I don't agree with the part in the GA article text that says two thirds of americans speak with a general american accent. But since it's sourced, it should stay. That said, I do know a Canadian actor that had to modify his speech to sound more american when he tried to enter the US market. And he had to change the way many of the vowels sound. This, along with the accent coach that has a profession in this, along with numerous linguists (Charles Boberg is an enthusiastic supporter of the uniqueness of Canadian English) I've talked to in regards to this, makes me very weary that Canadian English is the same as any american English. Bisnic95 (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bisnic95: I beg your pardon, sir/ma'am. I don't recall sharing any page. Furthermore, I don't think I even know how to share a page.LakeKayak (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bisnic95: As another note, I would prefer to say on topic. Whether or not Canadian English is a branch of American English is of little to no relevancy to my question. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure of Bisnic95's point either. Anyway, LakeKayak, I was referring to the vowels of the vowel chart. Wolfdog (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Velarized l

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

To my knowledge, in American English, the initial "l" still remains un-velarized. Regardless of whether or not this is correct, I am confused either way. Can anybody help me out? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There is still a distinction made between the "l" in "little" and the "l" in "all." The latter sound fainter than the former. If the former is still velarized, then how is pronounced?LakeKayak (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I might know my real issue. The page Dental, alveolar and postalveolar lateral approximants says that the "clear l" appears in New York City English in the word "let", with a citation from Wells provided. I live within the New York metropolitan area, and I may have a slight influence from the accent.LakeKayak (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that might be the case with NYCE, which has been highly influenced by foreign languages like Italian, Yiddish, and, more recently, Spanish. Also, in NYCE, a syllable-final /l/ may even be dropped. In my own American accent and that of most others I hear, little is [ˈɫɪɾɫ̩]. Also, in my particular accent, all is [ɒ(ə)ɫ]. Wolfdog (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Do you happen to have an audio recording of a speaker with the velarized initial "l"? I want to see if I can hear the difference.

Yes I can point you in the right direction and, again, you shouldn't be hearing any major difference. Here is a whole list of English speakers saying "little". All the American (and Canadian) speakers show some degree of velarization in both "l" sounds with perhaps the most velarized initial "l" sounds represented by speakers like ijarritos, Matt3799, rbedsole, and SpanishKyle. For user Wasch, you can in fact hear some difference between the two, but the initial "l" is still not strictly "clear-sounding" and the difference is still nowhere near as extreme as Australian speaker faye2 or UK speaker gcarter. Hope that helps. Wolfdog (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't even go as far to say all of the speakers have some degree of velarization of the initial "l." SeanMauch seems to show little to no velarization. Either way, I think I can hear the difference. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree - you can clearly hear velarization of the initial "l" on his recording. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I think there is a difference between the initial and final l in SeanMauch's recording. Perhaps the first l is less velarized, or perhaps the last l is vocalized (i.e., the tip of the tongue is not touching the alveolar ridge). I find when I analyze my own speech, (syllable- or word-) final ls often don't have the tongue touching the alveolar ridge. I like to think of myself as understanding the IPA, but I'm not totally sure how the sound would be transcribed. If it's [ɰ] (a velar approximant) after a vowel, then perhaps it's [ɯ], the vocalic equivalent of that sound, in little. But there may be lip-rounding, and it may be opener. — Eru·tuon 00:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The very initial portion of the initial /l/ to me sounds pretty strongly velarized. Perhaps it gets gradually more 'clear' because of the relative frontness of the vowel it precedes. Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I also definitely disagree. The SeanMauch recording is certainly one where both l sounds are noticeably velarized, though the second one perhaps more so. Wolfdog (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It can be noted that I am not the best analyzer. However, I do thank you all for your help.LakeKayak (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Mythical California accent

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article attempts to perpetuate the myth of the California accent as the source of the "General American" accent. It is a myth Hollywood enjoys contributing to but it is untrue. Californians have historically had Western accents (Howdy y'all). Hollywood and NYC promoted the central Midwestern accent as a standard accent and this rapidly became the standard in broadcast and film (indeed media outlets deliberately hired a lot of people out of the Iowa, Nebraska, etc. specifically for their accents). Over the years regional accents have been fading around the country, moreso in the South and West and less so in the Northeast. California in particular, because of its rapid immigration during the 20th century has seen more of a dulling of the native accent over the years than some other regions. But you still hear the native accent out in the rural areas (and, yes, people in California still use y'all out in the country and in some of the suburbs, though not as much as in the past).

This myth should not continue to be promoted.

--MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@141.131.2.3: Do you happen to have a source to support your claim? If so, it will be possible to alter the article in order to tell the story with the most accuracy. If not, you only would need to find one. Either way, this seems to be an easy fix.LakeKayak (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've read about this before but I'd have to go hunting to find it. I largely speak from having lived in California and know something about the culture. Either way, though, no sources are provided backing up this myth either.
Thanks. --MC
I completely agree with LakeKayak. If your claim is true, I've never heard of it. I'm aware that rural Californians have more Midland and Southern features, but the claim that across the board "Californians have historically" used "howdy y'all" (which, by the way, is most associated with Southern not Western accents) is new to me. The claim as it stands on the page right now is that Californians inherited Midwestern speech patterns, which also definitely needs verifying. But your idea that Hollywood alone promoted Midwestern speech also requires verification; why was this accent then "chosen" as the media standard over others? Wolfdog (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Vowel charts

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I'm about to replace the current vowel charts with [1] and [2]. The problems with the current charts I have are:

  • /ɪ/ is somewhat too front;
  • /ɛ/ is somewhat too close;
  • /ɔ/ is definitely too close for a normal /ɔ/ (even the source says so!);
  • /ɑ/ is too back and perhaps too close for an average speaker with the cot-caught distinction;
  • The ending point of /oʊ/ may be too back;
  • The starting points of /aɪ/ and /aʊ/ are definitely too close, they are more like pre-fortis /aɪ, aʊ/ found in speakers with Canadian raising.

The vowel charts I'd like to use are from Wells's Accents of English. They're not perfect either, but they're way better than the current charts. Revert me if there are any objections, but I think my reasoning is pretty good. Mr KEBAB (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Per a recent discussion on my talk page, I feel a need to further explain the post above. What I wrote about /ɪ/ and /oʊ/ is based on my subjective auditory impressions of the typical phonetic values of these vowels in GA. However, what I wrote about /ɛ, ɔ, ɑ, aɪ, aʊ/ is discussed by Wells and some other sources:
/ɛ/:
  • Wells (1982:485) says that GA /ɛ/ is somewhat opener than the corresponding RP vowel. In the previous volumes, he says that the RP vowel is typically mid [e̞], so that must mean that the GA vowel is open-mid [ɛ], otherwise he'd be talking about too small a difference to mention it. This is confirmed by his vowel chart.
/ɔ/:
  • Wells (1982:476) says that it is lightly rounded open-mid back [ɔ], which is opener and less rounded than the corresponding RP vowel, which in the previous volumes he describes as mid [ɔ̝]. This is confirmed by his vowel chart and by Gimson's Pronunciation of English (8th ed., page 129).
/ɑ/:
  • Wells (1982:476, 483) says that for most Americans /ɑ/ is central or perhaps somewhat backer than that. On the vowel chart, he puts it in the open central position.
/aɪ/:
  • Wells (1982:487−488) says that /aɪ/ generally has an open front starting point, but it can be central instead. On the vowel chart, he puts it between the front and the central position.
/aʊ/:
  • Wells (1982:488) says that the starting point of /aʊ/ is in practically the same phonetic range as the starting point of /aɪ/ and that [æʊ] is becoming increasingly common. The last statement is confirmed by Kretzschmar, Jr. (2004:266, in A Handbook of Varieties of English).
Last but not least, let's not forget that vowel charts don't have just one purpose, which is to tell you how exactly (well, up to a point) vowels of a certain accent are pronounced. The other purpose is just showing you vowel systems of accents, regardless of whether the positioning of the vowels is phonetically accurate or not.
Considering all that and the fact that General American is in fact an American-Canadian accent (rather than just American), I feel that the closeness of the starting points of /aɪ, aʊ/ is one of the most important reasons for which we should opt for the 1982 charts rather than the 1993 (not 2009, that's not the original year they were made) ones. When people unfamiliar with the IPA come here from Canadian raising and see the starting points of /aɪ, aʊ/ in a place where [ɐ] resides on the official IPA chart, it can surely confuse them. After all, we and sources such as Boberg (2004) say that one type of the raised allophones of /aɪ, aʊ/ are [ɐɪ, ɐʊ]. I'm not saying that speakers that don't use Canadian raising in their speech can't realize /aɪ, aʊ/ as [ɐɪ, ɐʊ]. That may or may not be true, but even if it is true, that's definitely not the only possible realization.
Let's also not forget that you can only show so much on vowel charts. You can't account for all the phonetic and regional variation, but rather just illustrate typical, general phonetic values of vowels.
I'm really curious whether Geoffreybmx can read cardinal vowel charts or interpret formant values in Labov's paper with any accuracy. I'm weak with formants, so I don't bring them up. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

IPAc-en template

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Why would we not use the IPAc-en template when it is the standard for all of Wikipedia? Wolfdog (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: It's quite a stretch to say that. We use it mainly in non-linguistics-related articles, in which it indeed is standard, but if someone needs the IPAc-en tooltips it's a sign that they won't be able to read this article with any fluency anyway. I'm for being noob-friendly but only when it has no consequences. I'm against using this template because it introduces inconsistencies in phonemic transcription. GA doesn't have phonemic vowel length, but if you use IPAc-en you're forced to write e.g. /iː, uː/ instead of /i, u/. Plus, marking length in phonemic but not phonetic transcription has hardly any justification as far as this accent is concerned. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB: Weird. Well, OK, whatever you think. Wolfdog (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wolfdog: I'm not sure what's weird in my reasoning, but I won't press the issue. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB: No, sorry. I meant, it's weird how we use the IPAc-en template. Weird that we have this whole template and then don't use it consistently. But if that's how it's used in your experience, then I'll trust your judgment. Wolfdog (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wolfdog: My bad then, but I don't see why we should prefer it over the simple IPA template in linguistic articles, if that's what you're saying. Again, users that need the tooltip feature will have other problems with this article anyway, it's possible that they won't even be able to understand a large part of it.
I see that you mainly edit articles on American English, and that may be where your idea that IPAc-en is standard came from. I on the other hand don't really edit anything AmE-related besides this article and American English, simply because I find other varieties of English more interesting. There may be an unofficial consensus among editors to use IPAc-en on AmE-related articles, that's probable. But if it introduces inconsistencies in transcription (like in this article), then it's questionable whether we should use it in other articles as well. Maybe you could check some of them when you have some spare time.
You don't even have to believe me, here are articles in which IPAc-en is used either sparingly or not at all: Received Pronunciation, Australian English phonology, New Zealand English phonology, Cockney and Scottish English. Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
You generally wouldn't want to use IPAc-en in linguistics articles unless maybe you are talking about English diaphonemes. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Aeusoes1: That's how we use it in the articles I mentioned. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I always assumed it was more for comparing dialects or generic English articles in which precise dialect was unimportant, rather than American English-specific articles. There are certainly elements of IPAc-en that make little sense to American English dialects, and I'm sure that's exactly your point. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Second-sentence change?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there any reason to change the second sentence of the article, "Due to General American accents being widespread throughout the United States, they are sometimes, though controversially, classified as Standard American English" to something more like "Due to the perception of General American being widespread throughout the United States, it is sometimes, though controversially, classified/known as Standard American English"? I italicized the word "perception" to show that this is the major addition here. This seems like a logical edit to me, but I was wondering what others thought first. The change from plural ("General American accents") to singular ("General American") also seems cleaner to me, though honestly I also kind of like the plural, because it reinforces the idea that GenAm is not just "one thing". Wolfdog (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel like we should just take out the first clause. Either way I bet this is such a minute point we can safely apply WP:BRD. Nardog (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

General American primarily spread via Midwesterners, via Californians, or via some other means?

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I was wondering whether anyone could stir up any sources to help either lend credibility to the following sentence or else unearth the reality of how General American "spread":

The fact that a broad "Midwestern" accent became the basis of what is General American is often attributed to the mass migration of Midwestern farmers to California from where the accent system spread,[citation needed][disputed – discuss] since California speech itself became prevalent in nationally syndicated films and media via the Hollywood film industry.[disputed – discuss]

The sentence has remained without much-needed citations for a while (as other frustrated users have pointed out), and, though its claim seems reasonable to me, it could just as likely be completely inaccurate. Does anyone know of any sources that could verify or counter? Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Take it out. It actually sounds a lot like guesswork to me. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's one option. Do we all agree it's total guesswork and unverifiable/unsourceable? And if it is... Is there some source we can still find to discuss how a General American sound became prevalent? Wolfdog (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Kretzschmar (2008:41–3) cites as potential major sources of the emergence of the standardized American speech suburban housing and advanced mobility in the 20th century and educated speakers' tendency to suppress regionally marked features in formal settings, and says "The typical speech of national news broadcasters is symptomatic – not a cause of the change, as many suppose" (p. 42) and "StAmE can best be characterized as what is left over after speakers suppress the regional and social features that have risen to salience and become noticeable" (p. 43). So the sentence does sound like total guesswork and Kretzschmar is probably a pretty good starting point to revise it. (And it also confirms descriptions like "spread" and "became prevalent" aren't accurate when it comes to General American.) Nardog (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking about asking if we were even approaching the history of GenAm appropriately by talking about its "spread", since of course GenAm is a collection of similar dialects rather than a single uniform variety that "swept the country". It seems to be a very fine line. I agree that the idea of education and formality are completely relevant and even necessary in discussing the usage of a (real or perceived) GenAm umbrella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfdog (talk • contribs) 11:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I've made some changes according to what we've discussed. Nardog, thanks for the source. Does anyone know of any reason why the highly educated of the twentieth century began "choosing" a non-coastal Northeastern rhotic sound as their supra-regional accent? Was it simply random that this location's accent was the accent with the least stigma/markedness? Wolfdog (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wolfdog: Maybe this post will answer that: [3]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB: A cool article. Thanks for finding it. But it seems to focus more on Hollywood than on the whole country. In any case, its main relevant claim is "As the 20th century progressed, America’s economic and demographic centre of gravity shifted westward. The heartland was largely white, gentile and rhotic, including many with Scots-Irish origins. They may have played a proportionally modest role in the creation of popular culture, but it was in the democratic nature of that culture to assimilate and reflect their speech. The result was that hypo-rhoticity became increasingly marked, in both lower and higher status speech." The reason given for why the "heartland" accent became GenAm, then, is basically due to the American "democratic nature." Hmm, seems a bit vague.
One other maybe more convincing argument is that TV encouraged that "heartland" sound in the media more than film had done: "The new medium of TV certainly reinforced General American speech. Where Hollywood had been a dream factory, relatively cosmopolitan and international, TV was more national and more reflective of real people’s lives, from news coverage to game shows with ‘ordinary’ contestants." Anyway, I think TV and film are the results of accent-spread more so than they are the causes of accent-spread.
Finally, a central argument for the blog post is that "popular culture as it spread from early 20th century America was to a large extent not rhotic" substantially due to the non-rhotic accents of "two ethnic minorities": African Americans and Jewish Northeasterners. This may be true enough, but it's very unconvincing to then make the leap that the white Hollywood elite developed their non-rhotic accent by trying to imitate black and Jewish accents. And of course, this still doesn't explain my original question of why GenAm was rhotic, except to say that most American had always been rhotic speakers. Wolfdog (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

/ɔː/ in General American

Latest comment: 7 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion

Hi all. Mr KEBAB and I have been discussing /ɔː/, or the THOUGHT vowel, in General American. Wells indeed represents it with the phoneme /ɔ/, though I don't think I've ever heard any American use that as the actual realization, myself a lifelong American. I've heard [ɑ] (for speakers with the cot-caught merger), [ɒ~ɒə] (my own personal realization and common to many speakers who have the merger in perception but not production, or who have no merger at all, like myself), and a definitely diphthongal [ɔə] (as heard by speakers in the Northeast -- New York City, Philly, Connecticut, Rhode Island, etc. by otherwise GA speakers -- and in older US speakers elsewhere). The sound [ɔ] ⓘ for THOUGHT, though, comes across to me as strictly British-sounding. Obviously, these are all only my impressions (strong ones), so the important question is: Are there any sources to confirm any of these as GA realizations? Wolfdog (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: I don't think Open-mid back rounded vowel.ogg is correct, the vowel on it is too rounded and perhaps too high to be a correct audio for the cardinal [ɔ]. Indeed, it's quite close or perhaps even identical to the RP /ɔː/, which is a strongly rounded mid back vowel, auditorily closer to the cardinal [o] than [ɔ]. Wells says that the GA vowel is lower and less rounded than the corresponding RP vowel.
Wells does discuss the [ɒ] realizations, but I don't think they fall under what is described as General American:
Turning to the question of the realization of /ɑ/ and /ɔ/, we can say that where they contrast in the GenAm area /ɑ/ is usually open (retracted) central unrounded (much as RP /ɑː/), while /ɔ/ is a lightly rounded half-open back [ɔ] (and therefore opener and less rounded than the usual RP /ɔː/). In the north-central area, however, /ɑ/ tends to be fronted to [a̠] or even [a]. The THOUGHT vowel, in turn, is often as open as [ɒ], particularly away from the Atlantic coast. (In eastern New England, though, it is [ɒ], with loss of the LOT-THOUGHT opposition.) But in Philadelphia and Baltimore, as also in New York City, it is no opener than [ɔ], and is well rounded.
The quote (slightly changed/shortened) is from AoE, p. 476. The second (Bostonian) [ɒ] is obviously non-GA, but the first one is more controversial. I thought that Wells describes a part of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift (because /ɑ/ as [a] is a part of it), but perhaps I was wrong. So what is it?
I don't deny that /ɔ/ as [ɒ] is a part of GA. Most probably, it is. The problem is that the source may not be the best one to determine that. If anyone can interpret formant values, please check Labov and tell us what he says about this issue. Mr KEBAB (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know whether we should preoccupy ourselves with the monophthong-centering diphthong distinction. When you analyze the GOAT vowel as a tense mid monophthong, /ɔ/ can be conveniently analyzed as a lax mid monophthong, and lax monophthongs in GA have centering allophones in some positions (see Wells), not only in GA but also in some speakers in England (see Gimson 2014). IMO it's just a rather predictable phonetic variant. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Wells specifically seems to describe the American (unmerged) THOUGHT vowel in a way that could be represented as [ɔ̞]. Your quoted text shows that Wells indeed does mention the [ɒ] variant; do you feel he's only referring to the north-central U.S. region? I'd disagree, since Wells again brings up and is consenting of [ɒ] or [ɒː] as a GenAm variant explicitly in a blog post of his here; he admits to not using that variant in the Longman Dictionary merely due to [ɔː] being a convenient way to represent both AmE and BrE. Wells in the blog further states of the GenAm vowel that "we could decide to write it ɒ", though he fears "that would create confusion" in respect to traditional RP phonemes. He only seems to fear using that symbol in situations of GenAm/RP comparisons; otherwise, however, it's phonetically accurate. Wolfdog (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wolfdog: Woah, let's not conflate what different sources say on this topic. The fact that they were written by the same author is only somewhat relevant, they're still different sources and we must treat them as such.
The problem I have with [ɒ] as described by the AoE is that I have a strong impression that Wells describes features of the NCVS and the Boston accent, nothing more. Look at how it's worded - [a] is a strongly non-GA realization of /ɑ/.
We'd be walking on shaky grounds if we used Wells's blog to source anything here. Someone could come, remove it and we wouldn't really be able to say a word about it since it'd be in a perfect alignment with the sourcing rules of WP. Using it to back up what AoE is saying is also unacceptable. However, if you or someone else could check Sounds Interesting (2014) or Sounds Fascinating (2016), which are books that are basically collections of posts from Wells's blogs, that'd be great. If you find that post in one of those books, that'll solve our problem.
I checked Labov (2006:108), and his map (which doesn't differentiate between cot-caught and non-cot-caught merged speakers) states that the typical height of /ɔ/ in the US has the F1 values between 937 and 674 and so it's most likely in the [ä ~ ɑ ~ ɒ (~ ɔ)] range (rounding can't be reliably determined from formant values alone). The raised THOUGHT, typical of New York, has the F1 value between 674 and 520 and it's most likely in the [ɔ ~ o] range. This may be what we're looking for. I'm pinging @Aeusoes1: to help us, since I suck with formants.
Notice that Wells says in his blogpost that he transcribed the GA vowel with ⟨ɒː⟩ in the first edition of LPD. @Nardog: has it, maybe he could check whether Wells elaborates on his choice in the book. Then again, a quote from the third edition would be much better, as I know of at least one instance of an incomplete/outdated explanation from the first LPD - see this discussion, search for 'There's something wrong with that quote'.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English also uses ⟨ɒː⟩ for the GA vowel. But that's not good enough, the fact that a certain vowel is transcribed with a certain symbol in phonemic transcription gives us only a very rough idea on its phonetic realization. Mr KEBAB (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The fact that two sources were written by the same author is absolutely relevant. What if an author published a text that said "Some information in an older text of mine is now outdated or discredited"? I'm baffled that you can think the author is not relevant to a source, even though I understand that blogs are frowned upon as sources. I don't actually expect us to quote and cite the blog; I'm just showing you that an obvious and respected expert in the field approves of the vowel. If you just wanted better sources, that would be one thing: we'd be on the same page in our search. Instead, though, we seem to continue arguing about the vowel itself. I did look at the AoE wording by the way. Why would he say "particularly away from the Atlantic coast", when the north-central area is already defined as being away from any coast? I believe he's saying that the unmerged vowel everywhere is "often as open as [ɒ]", while along the (North) Atlantic coast, it is higher, starting somewhere in the vicinity of [ɔ]. I know Sounds Interesting or Sounds Fascinating, but they are basically lists of the pronunciation quirks of certain words, not entire lexical sets, so I can't see their helpfulness for our situation (which is about GenAm allophones of /ɔː/ of course). Thanks for involving Aeusoes1, since I too can't really work in numbers. I appreciate your trying to find other sources to get to the bottom of this. In my opinion, [ɒ] is a completely common GenAm option (even if not the most common, though it well could be -- of course I couldn't possibly prove either concept) and so should be included in the possible realizations, whereas [ʊə] or [ɔo] or the British-sounding [ɔː~oː] variants, for example, would mark someone as a non-GA speaker. (By the way, do you also find the audio file for [ɒ]ⓘ to be incorrect? To my ears, it sounds the exact way I personally pronounce the THOUGHT vowel. Also, interestingly, the page Open back rounded vowel presents [ɔ̞] as an alternative representation for [ɒ].) Wolfdog (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm watching this thread but I'm not sure what contributions I can make to the conversation. I don't have personal experience with that vowel (I'm from California) and I don't have additional sources to bring to the table. Wells seems like a trustworthy source to rely on, though it wouldn't hurt to find a broad base of phonetics sources. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Aeusoes1: I was hoping you could help me decipher Labovian formants. I have no idea whether my interpretation is correct. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB: To answer your request, here's what LPD1 says:

There is considerable variability in GenAm vowels in the open back area. LPD follows tradition in distinguishing the vowel of lot lɑːt from that of thought θɒːt. (Note, though, that other books generally use the symbols ɑ, ɔ, or ah, ɔh respectively.) However, some Americans do not distinguish these two vowel sounds, using the same vowel sound in both sets of words; so a secondary AmE pronunciation with ɑː is given for all words having ɒː. LPD also makes provision of a difference between the vowel of thought θɒːt and that of north nɔːrθ (the symbol ɔː, implying a closer quality, like RP ɔː, being shown for AmE only after r); but many speakers do not make an appreciable difference between these qualities. (p. xiv)

I think "appreciable" is the key. In fact a GA back vowel chart on p. xvi shows /ɒː/ (unmerged THOUGHT) exactly halfway between the cardinal [ɒ] and [ɔ], while /ɔː/ (NORTH) is the cardinal [ɔ].
I don't understand how AoE's description of the THOUGHT vowel being [ɒ] could be interpreted NOT as of the NCVS. He says "in turn", so clearly the two sentences are describing the same accent(s) (the map on Northern Cities Vowel Shift covers Connecticut and upstate New York, so "particularly away from the Atlantic coast" is not strange at all).
As for the blog post, I think he, in response to the question, is talking about how the GA THOUGHT is opener than the RP counterpart (which is closer than the cardinal [ɔ]), not in comparison to the cardinal [ɔ] itself.
So it seems to me both [ɔ] and [ɔ̞] are totally acceptable descriptions of the GA THOUGHT, but definitely not [ɒ]. [ɒ̝] is acceptable as well, but THOUGHT is most often transcribed with ⟨ɔ⟩, so [ɔ̞] is more reasonable. Nardog (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm on board with everything you say until you somehow conclude that what's acceptable includes [ɔ̞], but "definitely not [ɒ]." Huh?? According to your own investigation into this, [ɒ] (or more precisely, [ɒː], it seems) is perfectly acceptable... or, at the very least, very much within the "acceptable" range. Once again, for example, you show how Wells is entirely approving of [ɒː] in the LPD. If you prefer the transcription [ɒ̝], I'd be content with using that as one of the presented realizations on the article page. Can this we reach that agreement, at least? If not, I'll yield the argument, since the consensus seems against me. Wolfdog (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
LPD1 uses ⟨ɒː⟩ only in phonemic transcription, and we're deciding what symbol to use to represent the phonetic realization of the GA unmerged THOUGHT vowel. Nardog (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)'
This is exactly the argument I've been making, but about /ɔː/, which is Wells's typical phonemic transcription for THOUGHT in AoE and later LPDs. He at least once openly admits that "In the first edition of LPD I actually represented the AmE THOUGHT vowel as ɒː, differently from BrE ɔː" but "I decided to use the symbol ɔː for both varieties. Apart from anything else, this makes for simpler entries, since the same transcription of words like thought θɔːt and law lɔː will do for both BrE and AmE." As you would agree, his words here are all about phonemic rather than phonetic transcriptions. At the same time, his words about avoiding [ɒ] as a phoneme in themselves suggest, however, that it is certainly one possible phonetic realization. He never says anything about avoiding [ɒ] because it is imprecise or illogical, just that it is a less convenient phonemic representation. Anyway, I'm fine with dropping the conversation on the grounds that we've found no positive/citable phonetic evidence of [ɒ].Wolfdog (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wolfdog: You're quite wrong in thinking that what I'm arguing about is the vowel. No, that's not it - it's the sources and the kind of sources we can and should use here. Actually, per WP:SPS we can safely cite Wells's blog. Maybe it's a new policy, I'm not sure, but I could've sworn it said something else. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB: I'm not sure what to make of your realization. So do you think we can now present [ɒ] and cite the blog as its source? Wolfdog (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wolfdog: Yes. Not only that, we can also pretty safely use blogs of Geoff Lindsey, Jane Setter, Peter Roach, Alex Rotatori and others as sources. This is good news. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB: OK, I've added the vowels and blog source. Please make any other changes you feel are appropriate. Wolfdog (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wolfdog: Thanks, but I'm not sure if we want both [ɒ] and [ɔ̞] in the table. I'd go for the latter because the common phonemic symbol is /ɔ/. Soon I'll write a lengthy (or not that lengthy, we'll see :P) joint reply to you and Nardog. For now, I'm just curious what is the reason for including [ɔə] as a GA pronunciation? Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB: Yes, of course, I forget that [ɒ̝] and [ɔ̞] are really the same. I think the diacritics are important, so long as the audio on Wikipedia remains potentially misleading. As for [ɔə], I thought that was included in the AoE, but I see it really was a regionalism of just Philly/NYC. I'll make adjustments. Wolfdog (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nardog: Thanks again for the quote. Sorry for not replying earlier, I'm finishing my research and will soon expand upon my answer (which is incomplete). Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Any vowel symbol with no diacritic, when describing the exact phonetic quality of a vowel, is by default taken to be that of the cardinal ones, correct? So just [ɒ] with no diacritic would be too open. This is what I implied the last I replied, and I just assumed Mr KEBAB would make this point so I didn't bother.

I also would like to reiterate that Wells' post is simply describing the AmE THOUGHT to be opener than the RP THOUGHT, but not necessarily than the cardinal [ɔ]. And as we know, the RP THOUGHT is closer than the cardinal [ɔ], sometimes rather closer to [o], so I just don't understand how the post could be used as a source to support the transcription [ɔ̞], regardless of whether a blog could be used as an RS or not (if anything, LPD1 p. xvi is such a source we could use to say it's [ɔ̞]). Nardog (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: Sorry, I tried to do too much in too short a period of time. Apparently I shouldn't try to multitask and give empty promises. This is going to be a rather long post, but that's what I said I'd write. Anyway:
Thanks for changing the source to AoE. Then again - isn't it at odds with what Wells writes in the third volume and our vowel chart? Just saying...
Any vowel symbol with no diacritic, when describing the exact phonetic quality of a vowel, is by default taken to be that of the cardinal ones, correct? Yes, that or a vowel similar in quality to the respective cardinal vowel. We need to remember that the cardinal vowel system is something that is obviously imperfect and to a certain extent purely subjective (unless we're talking about Luciano Canepari who obviously has a godlike hearing, no? ;))
So just [ɒ] with no diacritic would be too open. See, this is controversial. Acoustically, the cardinal [ɒ] itself is a near-open vowel between [ɑ] and [ɔ]. By that logic [ɒ] is a narrow transcription of GA /ɔ/. But that clashes with the cardinal vowel chart which gives the same space for rounded and unrounded vowels, instead of near-front to back and close to near-open for rounded vowels and front to near-back (front to back in the case of the fully open cardinals [a, ɑ]) and close to open for unrounded vowels. That is defendable because the cardinal vowel chart itself (as we know it today) isn't an accurate representation of where exactly vowels are made in the mouth, just an abstraction. But we should remember that the acoustic difference between the cardinals [ɒ] and [ɔ] is considerably smaller than the difference between the cardinals [ɔ] and [o]. This is partially because [ɒ] uses the same or very similar type of rounding as [ɔ], whereas [o] does not.
Also, there are varieties of English in which /ɒ/ is realized as an unrounded sulcalized vowel akin to RP /ɜː/. In that case, there's hardly any justification to write anything but [ɑ] in narrow transcription. After all, what difference is there between a sulcalized [ɑ] and a truly back [ɑ] you can hear in broad Cockney and some accents of Netherlandic Dutch? None. Exactly. The symbol [ɒ] is probably as useless as [ɶ, ɘ, ɜ, ɞ], you can pretty much always write [ɔ] or [ɑ] instead of [ɒ].
I took a look at 22 vowel charts on Commons which contain a (near-)open back rounded vowel or a (near-)open back vowel with variable rounding (some of the following are actually near-back, I obviously omit that for simplicity). Here's a list of them, along with the symbols they're usually transcribed with:
Here are the results:
  • The symbol [ɔ] was used 11 times;
  • The symbol [ɒ] was used 7 times;
    • It was only once used for a non-English dialect/language (the Orsmaal-Gussenhoven one). The rest 6 cases are all English dialects (Abercrave, Cockney, General South African, Geordie, RP, Scouse).
    • Only in two cases (Geordie, Orsmaal-Gussenhoven) was there a need to use [ɒ] instead of [ɔ]. On the other charts (General South African, RP, Scouse) we have [oː] mistranscribed as [ɔː] (or at least an in-between 'true-mid' vowel that is better transcribed [oː] for simplicity), and in other cases (Abercrave, Cockney) we can simply write [ɔ, ɔː, ɔʊ] without any problems.
  • The symbol [ɑ] was used 2 times;
  • The symbol [ʌ] was used 1 time;
  • The symbol [o̙] was used 1 time.
  • The vast majority of these vowels (in fact almost all of them) are near-open, not fully open. Some of them are slightly more on the open side and some others are slightly on the close side, but according to the principles of the IPA the symbols ⟨ɔ⟩ and perhaps ⟨ɑ⟩ should be preferred to ⟨ɒ⟩ because they are simpler.
  • Vowels that are transcribed with [ɒ] never contrast with an open-mid vowel but always a mid or a close-mid one (in the case of Geordie and the Orsmaal-Gussenhoven dialect, both mid and close-mid vowels are present). This is a further argument to write [ɔ].
Placing English vowels closer to the cardinal [ɒ] than the cardinal [ɔ] may be not only a result of the cardinal vowel system being subjective but also of an influence of British English accents themselves on phoneticians' judgement. Read this interesting article: [4]. Search for 'The chief disadvantage of impressionistic phonetics' if you don't want to read the whole thing.
Here's a Geoff Lindsey's article on which I based much of what I wrote: [5].
And as we know, the RP THOUGHT is closer than the cardinal [ɔ], sometimes rather closer to [o], so I just don't understand how the post could be used as a source to support the transcription [ɔ̞] To me, that post isn't ambiguous at all. To write [ɔ̞] to mean [ɔ] would be considerably redundant and simply wrong in narrow transcription (which Wells used in that particular case). To me, the post unambiguously states that RP /ɔː/ is above open-mid and more rounded than the corresponding cardinal vowel, whereas GA /ɔ/ is below open-mid and less rounded than the cardinal [ɔ]. Don't forget that he also wrote In the first edition of LPD I actually represented the AmE THOUGHT vowel as ɒː, differently from BrE ɔː, which would have pleased Bao Zhi-kun. Why would that please his reader if the GA vowel were open-mid?
You could bring up now how Danish is usually transcribed in the IPA, but that's a totally different thing and it's controversial whether we should even call it IPA (though it obviously uses IPA symbols, just in a strange and inconsistent manner and even Basbøll himself doesn't give a very good justification for that).
I'll try to respond to your previous message (and the Wolfdog one), but for now this is already long. I hope I'm making some sense... Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, apparently I didn't make complete sense in the message above. I mean this: That is defendable because the cardinal vowel chart itself (as we know it today) isn't an accurate representation of where exactly vowels are made in the mouth, just an abstraction. doesn't make a lot of sense because the cardinal [ɒ] is made exactly where the cardinal [ɑ] is. The fact that it's higher than [ɑ] on formant charts is the direct result of it being rounded. But still - I've proved that the near-open variant is far more common in world's languages and I still think that it would make at least some sense if we placed the cardinal [ɒ] above the cardinal [ɑ]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I also wanted to say that maybe parts of my rant would be better suited for Talk:Open back rounded vowel or Talk:Cardinal vowels. Maybe I posted it here prematurely, I'm not sure. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Near-rhyming or rhyming?

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

@Wolfdog:, what are your arguments/proof for this edit? My argument is that /k/ unambiguously belongs to the first syllable as it clips the preceding sequence of sonorants /ɜr/, just as in RP. The source is LPD. Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe it's variable. The CEPD transcription is /ˈwɜː.kə, ˈwɜ˞ː.kɚ/. But the corresponding RP recording clearly says /ˈwɜːk.ə/ ([ˈwɜkə], with a short vowel). If anything, it's the LPD recording that has a longer vowel, yet it transcribes that word /ˈwɜːk.ə/... Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we use murder or further or something, then? Nardog (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Nardog: I think stirrer is the best word. Murder and further have exactly the same problem as worker - the LPD places the syllable break before the schwa, whereas the CEPD places it after the NURSE vowel. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB: Syllabification of English words is something scholars never seem to agree on, so perhaps we're better off avoiding the word "rhyming" altogether and saying something like "the two vowels in ___ are pronounced with the same quality." Nardog (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Nardog: Maybe that's a better idea, but IMO stirrer has only one possible syllabification in GA, which is /ˈstɜr.ər/. This is because /ɜ/ doesn't occur outside of /r/ contexts in GA and because it's mandatorily rhotacized in e.g. New York English which preserves the hurry-furry distinction (and even /ˈstʌrər/ would have to be syllabified /ˈstʌr.ər/ because /ʌ/ is a checked vowel). Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah! Sorry, I didn't realize the heart of the contention here was syllabification. If we want to use a word like "assonance" or just say "the same r-colored vowel" rather the "rhyming" (which depends on the organization of syllables and which, I admit, didn't even occur to me since in my head worker is pronounced "wər-kər" despite being syllabified as "wərk-ər"), that is fine with me. Or if we want to keep the word "rhyming," then I'm happy to use an alternative example word than worker, such as your aforementioned stirrer. "Near-rhyming" was confusing, though, since, it makes it seem as if there is some slight difference with the vowel quality. Wolfdog (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Wolfdog: Oh, that's what you meant. I'm fine with either option. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Can we use [ɹ̩] instead of [ɚ] by the way? It'd be consistent with other sonorants and we'd avoid using the schwa symbol for a stressed vowel (which may be a bit confusing for readers that are accustomed to the way e.g. Wells transcribes GA). Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
In narrow transcription, [ɹ̩] might be a good idea. Nardog (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Nardog: I meant phonetic transcription in general, broad or narrow. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB: You mean even phonemic? If so that would allow a stressed syllabic consonant, which is quite unusual. I thought /ɜr, ər/ were the de facto standard for (morpho)phonological reasons. Nardog (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Nardog: Phonetic. Phonetic transcriptions can be narrow and broad, phonemic transcriptions are broad by definition. Phonemically, these are undoubtedly /ɜr, ər/. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB: This is slightly off-topic but I'm curious, who else is using Wells' analysis? The syllabification I've seen in other authors' literature almost universally follows the maximal onset principle like CEPD, though with variation in the treatment of the consonants after checked vowels. If I understand correctly, Wells' analysis is based more on phonetic evidence with emphasis on speakers' production. So just by looking at the phonemic representation /ˈwɝkɚ/ without the knowledge of how the word is actually pronounced, one would not be able to syllabify it with certainty as /ˈwɝk.ɚ/. Which obviously is not to say that such syllabification is wrong, but it is impossible to draw from the (unsyllabified) underlying representation alone or otherwise it would be circular reasoning. And /ɝ/ is not a checked vowel, so I bet the statement "worker is realized with two rhyming syllables" wouldn't be any confusing to most people (and if you're concerned about clipping, we could use murder etc.).
But again, just because Wells is a minority here doesn't mean he's wrong (if anything they're just two different approaches—one from phonetics and the other from phonemics, to put it crudely), so I stand by my previous point that in the article such language is better avoided altogether. But I'd love to know what other scholars think of Wells' approach. Nardog (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General American. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An anon keeps changing /oʊr/ to /or/ in one particular place in the article, creating inconsistencies in phonemic transcription. He quite clearly mistakes allophones for phonemes. It's understood that the FORCE vowel isn't a phonetic closing diphthong + [ɹ] but a close-mid monophthong + [ɹ]. If we were to change /oʊr/ to /or/ where the anon changes it, we must change /oʊ/ to /o/ in the whole article, and that will create discrepancies with /eɪ/, which we shouldn't change to /e/ since that's the most common representation of /ɛ/ in the British tradition. Plus, /oʊ/ and /eɪ/ are most commonly diphthongal, not monophthongal. There's no reason for that change. Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

/t/-glottalization

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The person who wrote about it seems to have lumped together glottal stops, pre-glottalized alveolar stops and glottaly masked alveolar stops, which are different sounds. For now, I've removed what I could. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: If you ever have any time and would like to outline the distinctions between the items you listed above, I'd love to read about it! Wolfdog (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Wolfdog: Sure:
- Glottal stop: read glottal stop and tell me if it makes sense to you.
- Pre-glottalized voiceless bilabial/alveolar/postalveolar/velar stops: [p], [t], [tʃ] or [k] that are preceded by a glottal stop. They're simple sequences [ʔp, ʔt, ʔtʃ, ʔk]. I'm not sure how widespread they are in General American, but they're extremely common in General British, so common that ESL speakers risk sounding non-native (and aggressive, consistent lack of pre-glottalization is perceived as rather aggressive-sounding in GB!) if they don't imitate that feature. AFAIK, Peter Roach is (or was) considering introducing pre-glottalization to transcriptions in his Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary.
On the other hand, Australian English almost never pre-glottalizes the fortis plosives, which is one of the most obvious differences between the General Australian accent and the General British one.
- Glottaly masked voiceless bilabial/alveolar/postalveolar/velar stops: read [6] and tell me if it makes sense to you. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Right. I guess the only one I didn't already know about was glottal "masking". Just didn't know that terminology. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Wolfdog: A reliable way of distinguishing glottaly masked plosives from proper glottal stops in the word-final position is that the latter often have a slight [h] offglide, so that they're actually affricates [ʔ͡h] or at least aspirated stops [ʔʰ]. Compare [nɑt͡ʔ] with [nɑʔ͡h ~ nɑʔʰ]. Do the latter sound American to you?
Unless I'm mistaken and this affrication occurs only in the UK, not the US. Then forget about what I've said. Mr KEBAB (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_American_English/Archive_4&oldid=912493540"