User talk:Amble/3

English language

I templated Sazunov for having long discussions in Russian on his talk page. As the template said, there should be a translation. ~~If you are bilingual, you could help out by translating the discussions you have with him there.~~ Seeing his and your phrases translated into English might also help him with improvement of his English proficiency. Thanks. Edison (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for later providing translations. You will notice that at the time I placed the template there were not yet ~~any~~ translations. I do not possess a crystal ball capable of detecting that you were going to translate the material after I placed the template. Edison (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your translations might very well help. Thanks. Edison (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is to long back-and-forth threads not in English. Edison (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luxe, luke, and lawk(s).

1. The pronunciation of "luxe" is disputed: Not only is it pronounced in two different ways in US - as indicated both in the (American) M-W dictionary and in Wiktionary (without any indication about how it's pronounced outside US), but it also never rhymes with "dukes" in the British Collins Dictionary (which indicates that "luxe" only rhymes with "looks" or with "lucks").

2. The very word "luke" (as an adjective rather than as a proper noun) is absent in the (American) M-W dictionary, and is indicated in Wiktionary as a Britishism, so I suspect it's not recognized outside UK.

3. Both lawk and lawks are indicated in Wiktionary as Britishisms, and I can't find them in the (American) M-W dictionary.

HOOTmag (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the basic problem is that every list of 9 contains a word or pronunciation that's not terribly common. I've suggested one with "ked", which has the advantage of being an ecumenically uncommon word. --Amble (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need those nine words, for a new edit (I'd like to make) in our article English phonology, in order to scientifically prove that English really has "at least nine" monophthings as phonemes (as far as the main varieties of English are concerned). The current list there: FLEECE KIT DRESS TRAP STRUT THOUGHT FOOT GOOSE BALM (or BOMB), does not prove that those monophthongs - are really phonemes - rather than just allophones of less than nine phonemes (maybe even of a single phoneme, from a theoretical point of view).
My main problem now is: how to choose the "best list" that should replace the current list there, but first of all, I must figure which word is more common (in the main varieties of English): lawk, hudd, ked. I tend to prefer ked, because it appears both in the British Collins dictionary and in the American M-W dictionary.
I also wonder whether I should give there more than one set of nine words.
Anyways, I'm going to add there - as an "addendum" - the additional phonemes of the British monophthong system, by adding "lurk, lark" (whose monophthongs are phonetically different from the monophthong of "lock" when pronounced in the non-rhotic British accent), or by adding "herd, hard" (whose monophthongs are phonetically different from the monophthong of "hod" when pronounced in the non-rhotic British accent), or by adding "curd, card" (whose monophthongs are phonetically different from the monophthong of "cod" when pronounced in the non-rhotic British accent). The additional pair of words I will add - as an "addendum" - for the British accent, depends on the set of nine words I will eventually choose.
I'm eager to hear your advice.

HOOTmag (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but make sure not to stray into original research. I'm not sure I can offer too much useful advice; these vowels are not quite my own vowels, so I've been looking up the pronunciations on Wiktionary. For me some of these aren't distinct or might not be diphthongs. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've called yourself (at the reference desk) "American English speaker" - I'm quite sure that the "vowels" - you've been talking about as - not "distinct" for you, are the vowels of: lark/lock hard/hod card/cod. I'm also sure that the vowels - you've been referring to as - "not quite" your "own vowels", are mainly the vowels of: lock hod cod - when pronounced in the non-rhotic British accent. I'm also sure that the vowels - you've been referring to as - not "diphthongs", are the vowels of: lurk/lark herd/hard curd/card - when pronounced in the non-rhotic British accent. However, although the latter vowels are a bit lengthened in that accent, I don't think this justifies considering them as "diphthongs" in that accent, and I would add them as "additional monophthongs" - existent in the British monophthong system only.

Anyways, this issue - regarding the British accent - I've discussed in the last section of my previous response, was not the issue about which I wanted to hear your advice.

As for your advice to avoid OR: of course, I only want to replace the current list (in that article) by another one, and I still hesitate which one is the best.

HOOTmag (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a complete cot-caught merger, so out of each list of nine words there's a pair that's identical to me. I originally spoke a form of Southern American English, not GAE, and the vowels of my idiolect still aren't reliably the same as the most standard ones in GAE. If I want to I can pronounce some of your monophthong words as not only diphthongs, but two or three syllables. ;-) --Amble (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Canadians who try to imitate GAE speakers, pronounce "lawk" "cawed" like "loh-uck" "coh-udd", but I can't imagine any reasonable way using three syllables for this task... HOOTmag (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three is an exaggeration, but only a little bit: Southern_American_English#Modern_Southern. --Amble (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote from the article Southern_American_English#Modern_Southern: "The distinction between the vowel sounds of words like caught and cot or stalk and stock is mainly preserved". HOOTmag (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I spoke Southern American English when I was a child. As an adult I speak approximately GAE with a cot-caught merger and probably a few other oddities. So I don't ordinarily distinguish cot from caught, but if I try to speak like I did as a child, then I can distinguish cot and caught; although now some of the other vowels aren't monophthongs any more. That's what I meant about these not being quite my vowels for various reasons. Probably more than you wanted to know. --Amble (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How come you finally adopted the cot-caught merger (although you didn't have it when you were a child)? HOOTmag (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just the dialect where I lived later, I guess. Or else my Southern "caught" was really a diphthong and I never had it as a distinct vowel quality. --Amble (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was this place - having that "dialect" (as you've named it), in the States? Really, there are some places in the US that have the cot-caught merger, but I think it's not them, because you didn't indicate any of them when I asked you (after you'd indicated that some vowels are not distinct for you) about your calling yourself (at the reference desk) "American English speaker". Anyways, if not in the US, then the only other place I can think about - which has that merger - is Canada. However, if neither US nor Canada, then you should have omitted the first sentence from your last response. HOOTmag (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the States. The cot-caught merger is pretty widely distributed in American English, I think. As I mentioned earlier, I doubt there was ever a time when "cot" and "caught" were distinct monophthongs for me. If "caught" was distinct, it would have been a diphthong. So your lists of nine words never would have been distinct monophthongs for me, either as a child or as an adult. --Amble (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, I think you agree with me that, when I asked you (after you'd indicated that some vowels are not distinct for you) about your calling yourself (at the reference desk) "American English speaker", you should have presented the later accent you eventually adopted as an adult - instead of presenting the Southern American accent - with which you grew up as a child - and which does distinguish between those vowels. HOOTmag (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been an American English speaker, and I think what I said was clear and correct, if not fully elaborated. I certainly didn't go into full detail of where I have lived at each point in my life, and I don't intend to give out that information on Wikipedia. The point is that I have never had your set of nine vowels as nine distinct monophthongs. --Amble (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Please note that I've never denied that (I hope you don't deny what I've claimed in my previous response). HOOTmag (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree with your previous post. I don't wish to continue this conversation. --Amble (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I appreciate so much your efforts to help me at the reference desk, then - for god sake - please: don't consider my current comment as a trial to continue this conversation (as opposed to your request), but rather as a sincere effort to fully apologize and to clarify myself. So I really apologize - from the bottom of my heart - if anything in my previous responses was not understood as I'd wanted it to be understood. My original intention was, not to deny anything in your testimony about yourself (I've always accepted it as it is), but rather to make sure you agree with what I thought you could have written - as a better alternative - instead of what you finally wrote (which I thought was not formulated well - that's all), whereas your last answer "no" - really surprised me! However, since you pointed out you didn't wish to continue this conversation, I'm not going to ask why you don't agree with what I thought you would have agreed: Instead, I will respect your request. Anyways, I still keep appreciating you very much! All the best! HOOTmag (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]