It's said that there are no long consonants in English, but at least I have a long [m] sound at the beginning of "memorial":
[m:Or\i=5].
[m:Or\i=5].
long consonants
That's neat. I've never heard anything like that before. It seems though that your [m:] is phonemically /m@m/, so you don't have phonemic long consonants. What other phonetically long consonants do you have?
>>That's neat. I've never heard anything like that before. It seems though that your [m:] is phonemically /m@m/, so you don't have phonemic long consonants. What other phonetically long consonants do you have? <<
I have this as well, and I actually have a similar pronunciation of "memorial", being ["m:O:RjM:]. Note that the long consonants [n:] and [m:] are actually quite common in my dialect, whether within morphemes, across morpheme boundaries, or even across word boundaries. Examples of words with such include "hadn't, "shouldn't", "problem", "Lindsay", and "grandma".
Note, though, that aside from the obvious cases of /nn/, /mm/, /n@n/, and /m@m/, a large portion of these cases derive from /dn/, /d@n/, /nd/, /bm/, /b@m/, and /mb/. Another note this that vowels before [n:] and [m:] from /dn/, /d@n/, /bm/, and /b@m/ are not nasalized but remain oral.
I have this as well, and I actually have a similar pronunciation of "memorial", being ["m:O:RjM:]. Note that the long consonants [n:] and [m:] are actually quite common in my dialect, whether within morphemes, across morpheme boundaries, or even across word boundaries. Examples of words with such include "hadn't, "shouldn't", "problem", "Lindsay", and "grandma".
Note, though, that aside from the obvious cases of /nn/, /mm/, /n@n/, and /m@m/, a large portion of these cases derive from /dn/, /d@n/, /nd/, /bm/, /b@m/, and /mb/. Another note this that vowels before [n:] and [m:] from /dn/, /d@n/, /bm/, and /b@m/ are not nasalized but remain oral.
English has long consonants... typically nasals...
Ex. unnamed (long, not named) and unaimed ("short," not aimed)
Ex. unnamed (long, not named) and unaimed ("short," not aimed)
>>English has long consonants... typically nasals...
Ex. unnamed (long, not named) and unaimed ("short," not aimed)<<
The matter is that these cases are just plain old morphological geminates. The interesting cases are ones that do *not* result from multiple morphemes (such as "problem" and "Lindsay" in my dialect).
Ex. unnamed (long, not named) and unaimed ("short," not aimed)<<
The matter is that these cases are just plain old morphological geminates. The interesting cases are ones that do *not* result from multiple morphemes (such as "problem" and "Lindsay" in my dialect).
>>What about "cannon"? I have something like [kE@~n:] for that.<<
In everyday speech I similarly pronounce "cannon" as ["k_hE{~:n:] myself as well.
In everyday speech I similarly pronounce "cannon" as ["k_hE{~:n:] myself as well.
<</dn/, /d@n/, /nd/, /bm/, /b@m/, and /mb/.>>
Yeah, I have some similar cases, for instance:
"number" - [nV~m:r\=]
"crumble" - [kr\V~m:5=]
"chamber" - [tSeI~m:r\=]
Yeah, I have some similar cases, for instance:
"number" - [nV~m:r\=]
"crumble" - [kr\V~m:5=]
"chamber" - [tSeI~m:r\=]
>>Yeah, I have some similar cases, for instance:
"number" - [nV~m:r\=]
"crumble" - [kr\V~m:5=]
"chamber" - [tSeI~m:r\=]<<
I tend to realize /mb/ rather readily as [m:] in "number" (where I normally have [m:] in everyday speech), a bit less readily in "chamber" (where I have [mb] in more careful everyday speech and [m:] in less careful everyday speech), and not very readily at all in "crumble" (where I normally preserve [mb] even in very informal speech). Such likely has to do with stress, phonological environment (I seem to have mb -> m: more readily before @r than before @r), and lexically conditioned carefulness more than anything else.
"number" - [nV~m:r\=]
"crumble" - [kr\V~m:5=]
"chamber" - [tSeI~m:r\=]<<
I tend to realize /mb/ rather readily as [m:] in "number" (where I normally have [m:] in everyday speech), a bit less readily in "chamber" (where I have [mb] in more careful everyday speech and [m:] in less careful everyday speech), and not very readily at all in "crumble" (where I normally preserve [mb] even in very informal speech). Such likely has to do with stress, phonological environment (I seem to have mb -> m: more readily before @r than before @r), and lexically conditioned carefulness more than anything else.
I've never even heard of that type of assimilation in English. So are 'number' as in # and 'number' as in "more numb" homophones for you, or are they a minimal pair for [m] and [m:]?
>>I've never even heard of that type of assimilation in English. So are 'number' as in # and 'number' as in "more numb" homophones for you, or are they a minimal pair for [m] and [m:]?<<
number (as in the #) ["nV~:m:R=:] or in more careful speech ["nV~:mbR=:]
number (as in more numb) ["nV~:mR=:]
In everyday speech they are a minimal pair for me, but I am still not likely to analyze the former as actually having underlying /m:/ per se for a range of reasons (such as it still having /mb/ in more careful speech).
number (as in the #) ["nV~:m:R=:] or in more careful speech ["nV~:mbR=:]
number (as in more numb) ["nV~:mR=:]
In everyday speech they are a minimal pair for me, but I am still not likely to analyze the former as actually having underlying /m:/ per se for a range of reasons (such as it still having /mb/ in more careful speech).
(On that note, damn - my dialect gets weirder the closer I look at it... I wasn't even suspecting any real minimal pairs on *consonant* length until you mentioned that pair...)
<<(On that note, damn - my dialect gets weirder the closer I look at it... I wasn't even suspecting any real minimal pairs on *consonant* length until you mentioned that pair...)>>
Also "cannon" [kE@~n:] versus "can" [kE@~n].
Also "cannon" [kE@~n:] versus "can" [kE@~n].
>>Also "cannon" [kE@~n:] versus "can" [kE@~n].<<
Same here:
cannon [k_hE{~:n:]
can (the object) [k_hE{~:n]
Same here:
cannon [k_hE{~:n:]
can (the object) [k_hE{~:n]