Talk:Phonological history of English consonants/Archive 1

NG Coalescence

It is stated that, "As a result of the differing effects of this sound change word-internally, the words finger and singer do not rhyme in most varieties of English, although they did in Middle English". This I must disagree with. I was born in England (Somerset), emigrated and then raised and live in south-western Ontario. When talking I find that "finger" and "singer" do in fact rhyme. In addition, I have noticed that the "g" does get pronounced after the "ing" in northern English - fing-ger, sing-ger, etc. There are generalisations here that I do not observe in reality. The area in which I live has 3 universities close at hand and 4th university down the road. This is pertinent in that a high quality of English with a good vocabulary is the norm in this area.

--Beowulf cam (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Ng coalescence

NG coalescence isn't a phonemic split. A phonemic split involves a single phoneme splitting over time into two distinct phonemes. The perfect example is the split of Middle English /ʊ/ into Modern English /ʊ/ and /ʌ/, with minimal pairs like put-putt. NG coalescence is the coalescence of a sequence of two phonemes — /ng/ — into a single surface phone [ŋ], which may not even be a phoneme (many phonologists feel that the peculiar distribution of [ŋ] is best accounted for by assuming that it is not a phoneme, but the surface realization of the underlying cluster /ng/. The fact that historical /ng/ sometimes shows up as modern [ŋ] (singer) and sometimes as [ŋg] (finger) does not make it a phonemic split, since /ng/ isn't a phoneme (but a cluster of two phonemes) and [ŋ] might not be a phoneme. Also, can you provide a source for the name "singer-finger split"? Who has called it that? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It might not be a phonemic split, but it's still a split. The fact that finger and singer don't rhyme makes it a split. And [ŋ] is a phoneme. All dictionaries call it a phoneme. Saying [ŋ] is not a phoneme is no less silly than saying that [z] is not a phoneme. Jun 14, 2005 - unsigned comment by User:205.188.116.13

If it's not a phonemic split, what kind of split is it? It's not a banana split either. The fact that finger and singer don't rhyme may have more to do with their different morphological structure than with their underlying phonemes. It's a matter of great controversy among phonologists whether [ŋ] is a phoneme or not; there are good arguments against it: If it's a simple phoneme, why isn't it allowed at the beginnings of words? Why is the distribution of vowels before it so highly restricted? I'm not saying I personally believe it isn't a phoneme, I'm just saying there are arguments against it, and they're not silly. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uhh... yes the ng sound is allowed at the beginnings of words. Not in English, but in Swahili they use it at the beginning of a word.Cameron Nedland 18:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I was only talking about English, the language in which ng-coalescence is found. Angr (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote-If it's not a phonemic split, what kind of split is it? It's not a banana split either.

It's a split of historical /ng/ into [ŋ] as in singer and [ŋg] as in finger, just like the starry-marry split is a split of historical /ar/ into [ɑr] and [ær]. [[User:64.12.116.12 |Steve]], Jun 14, 2005. - link added by User:Jimp based on Talk:Ng coalescence history

Ah yes, the famous starry-marry split, which you just invented. That also is a matter of morphological structure (polymorphemic star+y vs. monomorphemic marry), not a split. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

G-dropping

The article mentions g-gropping only as relating to gerund and participle. It can also apply to during (okay, originally a participle) and -thing (as in somethin). jnestorius^(talk) 09:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, also mornin' and evenin' (originally gerunds but no longer felt that way). Angr (talk • contribs) 09:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Vent-went merger

Occurs in people over 35?? Is this like Logan's run or something? Is this supposed to mean that Midwesterners' accents change as they age, or that this is an old (and dying) shift? --belg4mit 2006-01-03

I think the point is that it's only found amont older speakers. In twenty years it will be found only among those over 55, in forty years only among those over 75, etc. But frankly, if no one provides a citation that this is a genuine merger, rather than an occasional foreign accent being blown out of proportion into a stereotype, it's gonna have to go. --Angr (t·c) 05:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

TH fronting

The last 3 pargraphs all have phrases about th fronting as a distinction between Cockney and Estuary English, this highly redundant and repetitive. --belg4mit 2006-01-03

Moved from Talk:H-dropping

Hi Angr, can you please elucidate why you reverted my addition? The words "herb' and "historic" are commonly pronounced without h, as can be seen from combinations "an herb" and "an historic ..." that are in the majority for these words. −Woodstone 08:14, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

I didn't remove what you said, I simply moved it to the last paragraph of the page. The h-less pronunciations of "herb" and "historic" are the older ones; they're not due to h-dropping in English (they're due to h-dropping in Vulgar Latin). The h-ful pronunciations of the words are much later spelling pronunciations. They contrast with h-less pronunciations of "house" and "hundred", which are due to h-dropping in English, because in those words the h-ful pronunciations are older. --Angr 09:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't see the corrected lines a the bottom. −Woodstone 12:09, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Introduction, please

This article should have a short introductory paragraph that would explain to non-linguists what the article is about. KarlBunker 15:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that! At the moment it's still under construction; this article has been assembled from what used to be about a dozen separate stubs. We still have to go through and "glue" them together to form a coherent article. --Angr (tɔk) 15:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Karl's right though. The article's badly in need of glue. They all are. Jimp 09:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Difference between the syllable division in "father" and "bother"

Dictionaries claim that "father" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/father and "bother" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bother have different syllable divisions which are /bQD.=r\/ with the "th" belonging to the first syllable and /fA.D=r\/ with the "th" belonging to the second syllable. I don't know about you, but I pronounce them with the same syllable division as /fA.D=r\/ and /bQ.D=r\/ both with the "th" belong to the second syllable. Is it just me? Or are dictionaries just weird in saying that the words have different syllable divisions? Do you all pronounce them with the same or different syllable divisions? If you pronounce them with the same syllable division, do you have any idea why the dictionaries list them as having different syllable divisions? Klooge 04:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you really use different vowels in the two words? /Q/ is a checked vowel which means it doesn't occur at the end of the syllable. People with the Father-bother_merger use /A/ instead of /Q/ in bother and the consonant can shift syllables accordingly. jnestorius^(talk) 08:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable explanation. Here's what Cambridge says.

• father
• bother

Jimp 07:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the list of Hong Kong net-let merger data

I've removed the following from the article. It seems to me that such details don't really belong in an article as general as this. If any reader is interested, these details in particular can easily be found by following the provided reference. Jimp 00:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a list of data that was found for some Hong Kong undergraduates about the [l]-[n] alteration:

[l] pronounced as [n].

• line 37%
• lame 27%
• longing 17%
• lead 17%
• loose 17%
• loud 17%
• lower 17%
• leafing 10%
• lot 13%
• lake 13%
• long 10%
• leaf 7%
• let 7%
• low 10%
• leaving 7%
• light 7%
• leave 3%
• lumber 3%

[n] pronounced as [l].

• night 33%
• no 23%
• naked 20%
• number 20%
• need 13%
• not 10%
• net 10%
• now 10%
• noose 7%
• nine 7%
• name 3%

Alterations that were found between [l] and [n] in two pronunciation of the same word by the same speaker:

• Speaker 8: let, leaf, longing, lot, lake, lead, leafing, leaving, loose, not, light, night
• Speaker 14: lot, light, long, loose, naked, need
• Speaker 1: loose, loud, number
• Speaker 3: line, longing
• Speaker 7: number

I agree with the removal, especially because this is about a non-native pronunciation of English, not an accent among native speakers of English. —Angr 06:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal of the data. Topses 17:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

L-dropping in AAVE

I've heard some African Americans drop 'l' before d's as well, making 'hold' sound like /hoʊd/. Should this be noted or is this just mistake due to fast speech?Cameron Nedland 02:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably real; it just needs a source and it can go in. —Angr 05:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, where do you think I can find a source?Cameron Nedland 14:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

NG Coalescence

There is a lack of consistency of terms in this article. Is it Ng-coalescence, Ng coalescence or NG coalescence? The two hits I've found with google here and here give it as NG coalescence, and I have to say that Ng coalescence (with or without the hyphen) seems more like a heading than a correct term to me. Then there is H-dropping but h-adding, Plum-plum merger but rap-wrap merger, not-knot merger etc. Can we have some consensus on the use of capitals here? Richerman (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Double consonants

Something about pronunciation of double consonants changing over time -- eg. 'better' in Old or Middle English.

203.109.210.103 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Where's the history?

This article goes into a fair amount of detail (including an obscure Wisconsin variant) but very little reference to changes over time. Although changes in consonants are much smaller than changes in vowels since the days of Alfred the Great, I'm sure that there is more history than presented here. Is there someone with the required background that can answer this question (because I'm no expert)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.160.215 (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Other dialects

"Mettle smoothing" - or something like it- occurs in West Country dialects "rotten" => "rahn".

Similarly in Dublin English "Whore" => "Hooo-er", in an example of R-breaking.

Rich Farmbrough, 12:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

What about thirdy boddles of beer ?

This is the most obvious verbal defect, but it isn't on the list anywhere.Eregli bob (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Inaccessibility

As a non-linguist and one unfamiliar with the International Phonetic Alphabet, I found the article to be a little hard to digest. I feel that the lead paragraph should introduce the topic better to one unfamiliar with the topic, and perhaps a brief non-jargon 'history' section would be beneficial to the reader. However, I realise that the article is fairly specialist and subject specific so I fully understand if the editors feel this is not needed Rub117 (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Then-thyn split?

And what is a(?) 'thyn'? 'Thin', maybe? 46.186.34.99 (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

H-dropping

"H-dropping in English is found in all dialects in the weak forms of function words like he, him, her, his, had and have."

What? Apparently "all dialects" does not include the dialects I've grown up with. And strong and weak are a bad choice of terms, given that they have technical meanings with regard to old Germanic verb classes and adjectives. 71.163.96.225 (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I do have the contractions had -> 'd and have -> 've but that drops more than the h and that only affects the verbs, not the pronouns. 71.163.96.225 (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Say sentences like "when he goes to work" or "I let him use my car" as if you are having a normal/fluent conversation, not as if you are reading them from text. Actually pay attention to the way you pronounce those words and you will find you drop the h. This is true for every native speaker of English. As for the strong/weak thing, the terminology is well established in the literature. It has nothing to do with Germanic strong/weak, that's a morphology thing, not phonology. --94.11.131.245 (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)