''abbot'' and ''rabbit''
<<What about compound words like ''dustbin'' (which has an unstressed /I/ for me)? Do you pronounce it /dVstbIn/ or /dVstb@n/?>>
I pronounce it [dVstbIn]. But I wouldn't describe the second syllable of "dustbin" as unstressed anyway - by "unstressed" I mean "lacking a primary *or* secondary stress". Even in a dialect with the most progressive weak vowel merger, I think "dustbin" would still use an [I].
<<I pronounce it [dVstbIn]. But I wouldn't describe the second syllable of "dustbin" as unstressed anyway - by "unstressed" I mean "lacking a primary *or* secondary stress". Even in a dialect with the most progressive weak vowel merger, I think "dustbin" would still use an [I].>>
Except in New Zealand English where all i's (stressed or not) sound like [@].
Anyway, is the weak vowel merger considered to be part of General American English?
Since "dustbin" is never used in American English, I would assume most Americans would give each syllable its full value, because we would look at it as two separate and unrelated words that have been unaccountably slammed together... ;)
... unlike "rabbit" and "abbot" where the two syllables that make up each word cannot stand on their own as a separate word.
<<Except in New Zealand English where all i's (stressed or not) sound like [@].>>
Yeah, that's a totally different matter.
<<Anyway, is the weak vowel merger considered to be part of General American English?>>
At least a partial one. You should also note that many Americans (like Kirk and Travis) merge weak [I] and [@] as [I].
<<Since "dustbin" is never used in American English, I would assume most Americans would give each syllable its full value, because we would look at it as two separate and unrelated words that have been unaccountably slammed together... ;)
... unlike "rabbit" and "abbot" where the two syllables that make up each word cannot stand on their own as a separate word.>>
That's tied to the issue of stress, of course. Since the "bin" in dustbin is an element of a compound word, we give it a secondary stress. But the second syllable in "rabbit" and "abbot" has no stress at all.
Dustbin is never used in American English?
<<Dustbin is never used in American English?>>
No, I think it's mainly a British thing. Americans would say "trash can" or "waste paper basket".
Or "garbage can". The closest we get is "trash bin", and you don't hear that much.
I myself only ever use "trash can".
I myself usually use "garbage can" when I actually use a word like "can", as I will very often use just "garbage" or "trash" without qualifying it with "can", "bin", "basket", or like.
<<as I will very often use just "garbage" or "trash" without qualifying it with "can", "bin", "basket", or like.>>
Yeah, I also often just say "the trash".
Yup, "Throw it in the trash/garage" (common phrase) refers to the garbage/trash can [dustbin]
<<And I should add that I *do* have many [I]'s in unstressed position, as in the "in-" and "-ish" affixes, for instance "innumerable" [Inum@`@bl=] and "Spanish" [sp{nIS]. I believe that those might be schwaed in Australian English.>>
Another post from the archives, I come to procrastinate^Wclear up a misunderstanding. Indeed, in Australian English word initial unstressed /I/ (particularly in closed syllables) are retained (optionally in open syllables, so I can say [In_j{:mr@b@l] or more likely [@n_j{:mr@b@l]; otoh, one only says [IntAej6], rarely [@ntAej6]).
Furthermore, /I/ in syllables closed by: /k g S Z tS dZ v/ are also immune. Thus, arctic=[a:4Ik]; English=[INglIS] sandwich=[s}:mwIdZ]; olive=[OlIv]. Actually, [I] tends to be generalised to these positions as well, so you often hear things like [h{mIk]=hammock. That's mostly how I talk...
The merger doesn't happen in the cliticised pronouns though, so "Kill him" and "Kill 'em" are still pronounced differently (respectively, /kIlIm/ and /kIl@m/), so you needn't worry about accidentally sending multiple people off to their doom because someone misunderstood you. Obviously an important distinction to retain!
And no---to the extent that a compound is transparent, an unstressed /I/ would not be reduced. Just like an unstressed /e/ wouldn't be reduced, a phoneme which normally can't survive in unstressed syllables.
<<The merger doesn't happen in the cliticised pronouns though, so "Kill him" and "Kill 'em" are still pronounced differently (respectively, /kIlIm/ and /kIl@m/), so you needn't worry about accidentally sending multiple people off to their doom because someone misunderstood you. Obviously an important distinction to retain! >>
I would think that would be a contextual issue anyway, but I haven't been on any firing squads (lately) so....
What about "Kill 'im" vs "Kill 'em"? Those are pretty close in my dialect -- with bullets whizzing by, the distiction might be lost on a listener.