Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 August 31

= August 31 =

i versus schwa in pronunciation in United States
In ordinary speech in southeastern United States, I hear people say develop as \ di -VEL-əp\ and recite as \ ri -SITE\. On the other hand, I hear people say believe as \ bə -LIEVE\ and precipitate as \ prə -SI-pə-tate\.

Why not \ də -VEL-əp\ and \ rə -SITE\? Please tell me everything you know about this. What's the rule? Elaborate on weak form versus strong form for slow pronunciation. --98.88.35.136 (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I hear Steve Ballmer use schwa. Maybe it's always schwa, right?--98.88.35.136 (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Vowel reduction in English may give you more info about this. Angr (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The WP articles haven't helped. I am looking for specific answers concerning the words I mentioned.--98.88.35.136 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you are going to get much better answers on this. Sometimes, there aren't hard-and-fast rules on why some dialects pronounce some words a certain way, and not others.  Noting that it does happen is very different from assigning cause.  There may not be a cause-effect sort of thing here; yes there i-colored schwas, and u-colored schwas, as explained in Vowel reduction in English, but that doesn't mean it will always be a consistency within any one dialect to explain when each schwa will be used.  -- Jayron  32  13:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Do you hear \ də -VEL-əp\ in this video?
 * 2) Do you hear \ ri -SITE\ in this video? --98.88.35.136 (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the 'i' in ri to represent the IPA close front unrounded vowel (long e sound)? Because if so, yes, I hear \ də -VEL-əp\ and \ ri -SITE\.  With the words you have mentioned (develop, recite, believe, and precipitate), I have heard all of them both ways, with a schwa and with a long e.  I have probably used both myself.  &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 18:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean the i in ri as in pin, not as in keep.--98.88.35.136 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK then no, I hear "ree-site". &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 18:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference in how much we reduce vowels per how fast we're speaking, how formally, etc. But there's also an effect of neighboring consonants. Whenever the preceding consonant is a coronal (a tongue consonant, the Arabic "sun letters"), as in develop but not in believe, there seems to be a tendency in my dialect to have a "schwi" rather than a schwa. But I haven't actually looked into this. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems like User:kwami has given me the kind of rule that I was looking for, namely, the coronal consonants. It works for words like describe; based on my sense of hearing, there is definitely no schwa in the 1st syllable of describe wherein d is a coronal consonant.--98.88.35.136 (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the 1st syllable of the word mistake is definitely a schwa (based on my own sense of hearing); of course, m is not a coronal consonant. By the way, I love specific examples because they really help me understand concepts.--98.88.35.136 (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? I had to think it through, I guess I've heard the first vowel pronounced as a schwa, but it sure sounds odd to my ear.  Another thing that bugs me even more is when people pronounce magic and music as MAJ-eek and MYUZ-eek instead of -ik.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Listen to American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language pronunciation of "mistake" & compare it to "nystagmus". By the way, is the sound \v\ a coronal consonant?--98.88.35.136 (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, \v\ is a non-coronal consonant: check out velocity.--98.88.35.136 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * However, for "mislead," I don't hear a schwa even though "m" is a non-coronal consonant. Perhaps, because mis- is an important prefix and thus needs greater emphasis of the short "i" as in "pin".--98.88.35.136 (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a phonemic difference in English between reduced and non-reduced vowels, though not a robust one, since in many words either form can occur. But many other words can only have a non-reduced vowel, and mislead is one of them. So it's not a question of whether the reduced vowel is a schwa or a schwi, but whether the vowel is reduced in the first place. For example, the u in schoolbus isn't a schwa, it's a full /ʌ/, even though it's not stressed. (Omnibus is the same for some people, but I think is reduced to a schwa for others.) Non-reduced vowels are what many American dictionaries transcribe as secondary stress, though usually only after primary stress, so they'd do it with schoolbus but not with mislead. (The OED wouldn't do it with either.)
 * As for why vowels reduce in some words but not in others, generally if the morphology is obvious, then a full vowel will tend to be kept. So schoolbus, which is a compound of bus, and mislead, which contrasts with lead. Also uncommon, new, academic, or unfamiliar words tend to be pronounced with full vowels and with more syllables. Compare mammary, with 3 syllables, memory, with 2 or 3, and every, with 2, even though they all started out with 3. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * User:kwami, I now understand it. I thank all the contributors, but I thank you more for mentioning coronal consonants and giving me the answer that matches what I hear in everyday speech.--98.88.35.136 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hindi ज्ञ jñ
I used to know this, but now that I've forgotten I can't find it anywhere. How do you pronounce ज्ञ jñ in Hindustani? (specifically). — kwami (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently [ɡj]. Angr (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (I thought that's what was in Gujarati.) — kwami (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In Gujarati it appears to be [ɡnj]. Angr (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Our Gujarati-alphabet article has it as [ɡn] (in case anyone's still reading this) — kwami (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Gnanadesikan appears to be a common surname in India, and it has the same jñāna- root, so that's quite possible. I know nothing about Gujarati; I was just going by what Wiktionary says. Angr (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Gnanadesikan" is a Tamil name. In non-scientific transcriptions from Tamil,  is the most common way to write the [ɲ] sound, which in Tamil is the reflex of jñ in Sanskrit loanwords. No idea about Gujarati, though. --BishkekRocks (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)