While we're on the topic of yod-coalescence, I was wondering, Travis, if it applies before or after final t glottaling for you (assuming you have yod-coalescence). Eg. is 'get you' [gE?ju] or [gEt_Sju] for you?
Yod-dropping
Previous page Pages: 1 2
Coda /t/ glottalization to [?] (this occurs in cases other than word-finally, but the word-final case is just the most common) does not occur when a following syllable (typically in another word) has /j/ in an onset position. Rather, what normally occurs is palatalization and affrication to [tSj] or [tS] (with the former generally occuring in more formal speech and the latter generally occuring in less formal speech). And yes, "get you" is normally [gEtSju:], [gEtSu:], or [gEtS@:] for me.
In my idiolect: new, news, Tuesday, student and dew all have the yod. The rest do not.
>>I don't stick an unnecessary Y into any word at all.<<
That's what you think. But in speech for example "don't you" often becomes one word: "donchyew". And "what you" ~ "whachew".
That's not "an unecessary Y", though, since there clearly IS a Y in "you". I DO pronounce Y's where they actually occur -- I just don't introduce them into words where they don't, like news or tune.
That's what you think. But in speech for example "don't you" often becomes one word: "donchyew". And "what you" ~ "whachew".
That's not "an unecessary Y", though, since there clearly IS a Y in "you". I DO pronounce Y's where they actually occur -- I just don't introduce them into words where they don't, like news or tune.
>>That's not "an unecessary Y", though, since there clearly IS a Y in "you". I DO pronounce Y's where they actually occur -- I just don't introduce them into words where they don't, like news or tune.<<
Like "cute", "huge", "music", "few", ...
Like "cute", "huge", "music", "few", ...
>> Like "cute", "huge", "music", "few", ... <<
Why does these preserve it?
Why does these preserve it?
<<Why does these preserve it?>>
Because in American English, the yod [j] is only dropped after alveolars: [t], [d], [s], [z], and [n]. After all the other consonants, the yod is retained.
Because in American English, the yod [j] is only dropped after alveolars: [t], [d], [s], [z], and [n]. After all the other consonants, the yod is retained.
>><<Why does these preserve it?>>
Because in American English, the yod [j] is only dropped after alveolars: [t], [d], [s], [z], and [n]. After all the other consonants, the yod is retained.<<
I should note that it is also dropepd after /r/ and /l/, but this is an older yod-dropping that is present in most English dialects today (and not just North American English).
Because in American English, the yod [j] is only dropped after alveolars: [t], [d], [s], [z], and [n]. After all the other consonants, the yod is retained.<<
I should note that it is also dropepd after /r/ and /l/, but this is an older yod-dropping that is present in most English dialects today (and not just North American English).
>>I should note that it is also dropepd after /r/ and /l/<<
There is a yod after /l/ in the word "value".
There is a yod after /l/ in the word "value".
Yod is traditionally only dropped after /l/ in RP in consonant clusters, eg. 'blue' [blu:], 'clue' [klu:]. Younger people are increasingly dropping yod in words with initial /l/ (eg. lute), as with /s/ (eg. suit).
>>There is a yod after /l/ in the word "value".<<
Such is a consequence of syllable structure, as yod-dropping generally has only occurred when /j/ occurs in an onset with another consonant which it is dropped after; if the two are separated into different syllables such has generally not occurred.
Such is a consequence of syllable structure, as yod-dropping generally has only occurred when /j/ occurs in an onset with another consonant which it is dropped after; if the two are separated into different syllables such has generally not occurred.
You could say the same of the /t/ in "virtue".
Using Uriel's "tulip-chewlip" analogy, we get "vir-chew" even for North Americans. I wonder if Uriel thinks such is "an unnecessary Y".
Using Uriel's "tulip-chewlip" analogy, we get "vir-chew" even for North Americans. I wonder if Uriel thinks such is "an unnecessary Y".
<<''You could say the same of the /t/ in "virtue".
Using Uriel's "tulip-chewlip" analogy, we get "vir-chew" even for North Americans. I wonder if Uriel thinks such is "an unnecessary Y".>>
This is called yod-coalescence. It occurs in American English in unstressed syllables. It is common in RP as well, but not universal.
Using Uriel's "tulip-chewlip" analogy, we get "vir-chew" even for North Americans. I wonder if Uriel thinks such is "an unnecessary Y".>>
This is called yod-coalescence. It occurs in American English in unstressed syllables. It is common in RP as well, but not universal.
Previous page Pages: 1 2