Eh, (T)rebek?

[panache45]

I'm getting caught up on my Jeopardy!, which I have Tivo'd. This is from the Wednesday, August 3 game.

In the category "Homophones" . . . according to the staff writers, "adolescents" and "adolescence" are pronounced the same. Is it now acceptable to render the "t" silent?

[Erdosain]

To me, they sound like homophones. My mind balks at the notion, but "cents" and "sense" are probably also homophones if I'm honest about the way I actually speak. Maybe just a hint of t in cents.

Now you've got me repeating "fifty cents....sense...cents" over and over again.

[Peremensoe]

Has it not always been "acceptable" to render a T in that position silent, in some accents?

Also, a lot of people can't hear certain letters in other accents, even if the speakers can.

[colonial]

I pronounce the "t", IMO they should not be considered homophone,
and I am put off by Jeopardy's treatment of the issue. I would have
thought they could be counted on for more rigor than that.

[Joey P]

To me, they sound like homophones. My mind balks at the notion, but "cents" and "sense" are probably also homophones if I'm honest about the way I actually speak. Maybe just a hint of t in cents.

Now you've got me repeating "fifty cents....sense...cents" over and over again.

We send out gift boxes at the place where I work. One place that we send them out for is an old age home. The name of the place has the word Residence in it and the card includes the people living there. I always have to think about which word to put where since I can't tell when they read it to me on the phone... "From the staff and residents at Shady Trees Residence" (in fact, I got it backwards just typing it now)

[Serenata67]

It's a soft "t" sound. While I don't personally pronounce them the same, I can accept that some regional variations on the English language might. See the sub conversation in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=619126) about the pronounciation of the word "route," and I, personally, think there's an even bigger difference between "route" and "root."

[psychonaut]

I'm getting caught up on my Jeopardy!, which I have Tivo'd. This is from the Wednesday, August 3 game.

In the category "Homophones" . . . according to the staff writers, "adolescents" and "adolescence" are pronounced the same. Is it now acceptable to render the "t" silent?I doubt the <t> is clearly pronounced in any dialect; if it is, it's almost certainly not as the standard aspirated /t/ sound. Are you sure you are really making a distinction between the two? It may seem so when you say the word to yourself, but to be sure you should repeatedly say the two words at random and in isolation to someone else and see if they can reliably distinguish between the two. (Don't tell them which word you're about to say; let them guess.)

[John Mace]

Yeah, I went :dubious: at that one, too. There is slight, very subtle but distinct difference between the way I pronounce those two words. However, it's very close, and I can accept the homophone designation, especially since a lot of people apparently do pronounce them the same.

[WhyNot]

Definitely homophones in my dialect, along with cents and sense.

[randwill]

I'm trying to pronounce "cents" with a "T" sound at the end. Do those of you who say it that way say, "Sin-tuh-ses"?

[obfusciatrist]

Yeah, I can't even imagine how one would pronounce them differently that it would be audible to the listener. So any recorded examples would be great.

If you said to me "Go to the [residence | residents] of George Washington and see if there's any interest in a magazine subscription" I wonder where in the country you'd be that the listener would know immediately whether they're headed to Mount Vernon or looking for a town in Washington state (or maybe hitting the dorms of George Washington University).

[Siam Sam]

Where do people who think "cents" and "sense" are not homophones think all those jokes over the ages about "dollars and sense" come from?

[Frylock]

I'm also dubious that there's anyone who speaks English who pronounces these words differently. It's very common for people to think they pronounce things one way when in fact they don't. (Witness a friend of mine who insisted she pronounced 'truck' with an initial 't' sound rather than an initial 'ch' sound. But she didn't, and afaik, no one does.)

Any recorded examples of natural speech illustrating the difference, or a record of linguistic work showing there is a difference?

(I'm on the lookout for linguistic work showing there's no difference.)

[Chronos]

It's not a truly silent T, in that its presence does change the pronunciation of the word. But it doesn't change it by putting a T sound into the word.

And I just tested my own pronunciation of "cents" and "sense". Interestingly, it sounds to my own ears like I'm pronouncing them the same... But if I actually pay attention to what my tongue is doing, there is a difference. My tongue does indeed touch the roof of my mouth at the end of "cents", but not "sense". So I'm saying them differently without even consciously realizing I'm doing so.

[JKellyMap]

I pronounce the "t", IMO they should not be considered homophone,
and I am put off by Jeopardy's treatment of the issue. I would have
thought they could be counted on for more rigor than that.

Well, not exactly. I can guarantee that you don't say "adolescen--t--s", an impossible cluster in any variety of English. Instead, you end the word -- the consonant after the "n" -- with a "ts" sound -- a dental which doesn't make a sound by itself, followed by a sounded sibilant with the fact that you started it with your toungue in a dental position audibly noticeable.

In other words, EXACTLY how you pronounce "adolescence". There, the dental position occurs because that's where our tongue already is when we make the "n" sound.

Don't be fooled by how we WRITE these (or any) words! You must try to ignore writing when analyzing spoken language (as all of humanity in effect did for the first approx. 145,000 years of language, and as maybe a fifth of humanity still does today. Plus all children aged about two to five.)

[John Mace]

I'm also dubious that there's anyone who speaks English who pronounces these words differently. It's very common for people to think they pronounce things one way when in fact they don't. (Witness a friend of mine who insisted she pronounced 'truck' with an initial 't' sound rather than an initial 'ch' sound. But she didn't, and afaik, no one does.)

I do. The tongue is in a different position on the roof of the mouth for the "t" vs the "ch" sound. When I pronounce "truck", it's in the "t" position. That's the chruth!

[JKellyMap]

It's not a truly silent T, in that its presence does change the pronunciation of the word. But it doesn't change it by putting a T sound into the word.

And I just tested my own pronunciation of "cents" and "sense". Interestingly, it sounds to my own ears like I'm pronouncing them the same... But if I actually pay attention to what my tongue is doing, there is a difference. My tongue does indeed touch the roof of my mouth at the end of "cents", but not "sense". So I'm saying them differently without even consciously realizing I'm doing so.

You bring up an interesting point (even if I think most people DO position their tongue identically for the example you gave). You use the word "saying" here to mean "position of parts of mouth", rather than "audible result". I think most linguists -- indeed, most people -- would tend to use the word "saying" to refer to the "audible result". Would a blind person, or someone hearing a recording of you, or even just someone watching you but not keeping a very careful eye on your tongue position (if indeed it isn't hidden anyway), say you "said" something different?

(If the words were pronounced without context, obviously. In context, we finally get to what we REALLY mean, usually, by "saying" -- neither the sound, nor the position of the mouth, but rather the semantic/audible bundle of intended meaning.)

[JKellyMap]

I do. The tongue is in a different position on the roof of the mouth for the "t" vs the "ch" sound. When I pronounce "truck", it's in the "t" position. That's the chruth!

I'm afraid I don't believe you! ;) Seriously, a lot of the time, this kind of thing depends on whether we are pronouncing something carefully, slowly, and in a situation which encourages self-consciousness, vs. how we usually pronounce something in everyday life. That's why linguists often prefer to analyze recordings of people who are unaware that they're being recorded.

[Frylock]

My tongue does indeed touch the roof of my mouth at the end of "cents", but not "sense".

I don't understand. Your tongue has to touch the roof of the mouth in both words, because of the N, but in neither words should be touching the roof of the mouth at the end of the word.

[Frylock]

I do. The tongue is in a different position on the roof of the mouth for the "t" vs the "ch" sound. When I pronounce "truck", it's in the "t" position. That's the chruth!

You think so, but you are almost certainly wrong. ;)

[JKellyMap]

I don't understand. Your tongue has to touch the roof of the mouth in both words, because of the N, but in neither words should be touching the roof of the mouth at the end of the word.

Exactly! (See post #15 ;) )

[Baal Houtham]

I'm afraid I don't believe you! ;) Seriously, a lot of the time, this kind of thing depends on whether we are pronouncing something carefully, slowly, and in a situation which encourages self-consciousness, vs. how we usually pronounce something in everyday life. That's why linguists often prefer to analyze recordings of people who are unaware that they're being recorded.

Likewise I will not believe you without a link showing that 99.5% of Americans pronounce the word as "Chruck." I'm sure I unconsciously slur many words, but am having trouble pronouncing chruck in such as way that it doesn't require more effort to say than truck.

[WhyNot]

As a good Chicagoan, of course I have a fronchroom. But I'm pretty sure those are trucks going by outside. ;)

[pulykamell]

Definitely homophones in my dialect, along with cents and sense.

Same here, but we're in the same dialect.

I, too, say truck as something that could probably be better rendered as "chruck."

[Frylock]

Likewise I will not believe you without a link showing that 99.5% of Americans pronounce the word as "Chruck." I'm sure I unconsciously slur many words, but am having trouble pronouncing chruck in such as way that it doesn't require more effort to say than truck.

I'm on it. (Sent out emails to a few linguists asking how best to demonstrate this online.)

[WhyNot]

I, too, say truck as something that could probably be better rendered as "chruck."

After further review by the judges, I must amend my former claim:

I do say "chruck" if the word "delivery" is in front of it, it seems. Garbage truck, moving truck, ice cream truck, trucks and cars...delivery chruck. :smack:

[JKellyMap]

Likewise I will not believe you without a link showing that 99.5% of Americans pronounce the word as "Chruck." I'm sure I unconsciously slur many words, but am having trouble pronouncing chruck in such as way that it doesn't require more effort to say than truck.

Here's (http://literalminded.wordpress.com/category/phonetics-and-phonology/consonants/affricates/) one good discussion of the issue. I agree with you that it's not cut and dried, but you are way off with your "99.5%" figure. More along the lines of 50%, at most.

While the above link refesr to teh specific issue of affricate ("ch") pronunciation of initial "t" before "r", the general issue we're discussing here is:


Palatalization may be a synchronic phonological process, i.e., some phonemes have palatalized allophones in certain contexts, typically before front vowels, and unpalatalized allophones elsewhere. Because it is allophonic, it often goes unnoticed by native speakers. As an example, compare the /k/ of English key with that of of coo, or tea with took. The consonant in the first word of each pair is palatalized, but few English speakers would perceive them as distinct.


(that's from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization))

[california jobcase]

Chruck? Chruck? Do you say Chrain for train? Chree for tree?

I said chruck about ten times, then truck, and chruck just sounds wrong to me.

I'm a central Indiana native.

[JKellyMap]

Chruck? Chruck? Do you say Chrain for train?

Yes, and so do you, probably. (In un-self-aware, everyday speech).

Chree for tree?

Yes, again.

I said chruck about ten times, then truck, and chruck just sounds wrong to me.


Once again...that's almost surely because you are, in this instance, self-consciously pronouncing it, and therefore unconsciously trying to make it to conform closer to how you write it.

[Erdosain]

Forget chtrucks, I just realized that I actually say "Chrebek"!

This is messing with my mother-chrucking mind.

[JKellyMap]

Sorry...I should have included a paragraph from the link I posted, so people don't have to go to the link if they don't want to:

The same thing happens when I pronounce /d/ in a /dr/ cluster. Just as the voiceless /t/ turns into the voiceless affricate [ʧ], the voiced /d/ turns into the voiced affricate [ʤ]. That’s the stop [d] plus the “zh” fricative [ʒ], or in other words, what we English speakers know as the “J” sound. So hadron sounds like hajron; drip like jrip; droop like jroop, etc.

I’m not alone in these pronunciations; most speakers I’ve heard have also done it; and I’ve even heard of children who are learning to write spelling tr and dr as chr and jr. Why would this happen? To pronounce /tr/ or /dr/, your tongue’s starting position is with the tip just behind for top front teeth and the back of the tongue lowered. What comes next depends on how you pronounce your /r/s. If you make a “bunched /r/” like I do, then your tongue tip will lower and “bunch up” toward the back of your tongue, which will rise up toward the palate. If you have the “retroflex /r/”, then the back of your tongue will stay more or less where it is, and the tip of your tongue will move toward the palate, possibly enough that your tongue is curling backwards a little bit. (For more on bunched /r/ and retroflex /r/, read John Wells’s blog post or this explanation from Kevin Russell (scroll down to “retroflex”).) In either case, the tip of your tongue needs to move from its /t/ position. If, instead of picking it up from the /t/ position and placing it at the /r/ position, you just slide it from one to the other, air will escape through the gap between the tongue tip and the alveolar ridge (the part of your palate just behind your top front teeth). When that happens, you have a fricative.

As I think about this, a question I have is why the fricatives we get are [ʃ] and [ʒ], instead of [s] and [z]. I think it’s because a bunched /r/ is made with the tongue rising toward the palate, and [ʃ] and [ʒ] are, too. So as you get to the /r/, the air is escaping over a tongue that’s closer to the position for [ʃ, ʒ] than it is to the position for [s, z]. Supporting evidence comes from the fact that this same affrication occurs when /t, d/ come before another palatal sound: /j/. ([j] represents the consonant Y sound.) That’s how we get the pronunciation witcha for wit’ your, and didja for did ya. (And the “ch” sound in spatula and tarantula.) This hypothesis would also predict that /tr/ and /dr/ affrication occurs only with speakers who have bunched /r/, not those with retroflex /r/, so there’s a research project for someone. (If it’s been done, please leave a comment giving the source!)

-- posted by linguist Neal Whitman, in post entitled "Chricky Affrication"

[california jobcase]

But you said it's only pronounced chruck 50% at most- and you haven't heard me.

[JKellyMap]

Pronounced as "t" "50% at most", I wrote, to contrast to Baal Houtham's assertion of "99.5%" -- sorry of that wasn't clear. Eh, I was just giving him/her the benefit of the doubt, until I (or one of Frylock's friends) came up with a well-researched figure. I really don't know what the percentage is, but based on the commentary I did find from Neil Whitman and others in the know, I'd guess it's a very low figure (though perhaps not the 0% which Frylock attested.)

You're right, you may be one of the exceptions. No worries!

[John Mace]

I've been saying it quickly and slowly and in different positions in sentences, and it's truck, not chruck. Same with tree.

Go climb the tree. Absolutely tree and not chree.

[StuffLikeThatThere]

(Witness a friend of mine who insisted she pronounced 'truck' with an initial 't' sound rather than an initial 'ch' sound. But she didn't, and afaik, no one does.)


I just discovered that I say chruck. I am gobsmacked. And fascinated.

[guizot]

I'm also dubious that there's anyone who speaks English who pronounces these words differently. It's very common for people to think they pronounce things one way when in fact they don't.Or, when such people get up in front of others to make some kind of a "proper" speech, they affect their speech unnaturally to say it the way they think it "should" be said. (And they sound kind of foolish for doing so.)It's not a truly silent T...For the sake of discussion, I would describe the coda we're talking about in the North American Standard English word cent as an unreleased glottal stop, which is realized as released when in medial positions followed by unstressed vowels, in words such as bottle--although there's some disagreement about that. Here's a paper from Santa Cruz discussing that disagreement (http://people.ucsc.edu/~jpobrien/papers/obrien_tglot.pdf). (pdf):There appears to be a large amount of variation when it comes to English t-glottalization. The use of this process can vary by geographical region, social factors, and by phonological position|moreover, the phonological positions vary depending on these other factors.

[Frylock]

Trippy trees tricked a tragic truck for trusting tracks to trigger.

Whisper that several times in a row and see what it sounds like. ;)

[JKellyMap]

Okay, California jobcase and John Mace, I believe you guys. The linguist I quoted surmised that it might have to do with different ways that different people pronounce "r" -- "bunched" vs. "retroflex", as he put it.

I'm not an expert on this. I do think we have at least established that the "chruck" pronunciation is a lot more common than some people assume, while the "truck" pronunciation is at least somewhat more common than Frylock and I assumed.

And, to get back to the OP, we have established (I hope) that "adolescence" and "adolescents" really are homonyms. Essentially everyone, in both cases, has the tongue in a dental position, but without pronouncing a full "T" sound, just before the "s". For those that doubted this but now see that it is so, a classic lesson in not letting the written version of a word lead you astray.

(I recently came across this same overall concept when discussing with someone --- a teacher of English as a second language -- whether idli (also spelled iddly), a kind of South Asian bread, is pronounced just like Italy by most speakers of English. That is, no one pronounces the "t" in Italy as a "t", but rather as a "d"; and, no one can pronounce a word like "idli" without inserting a schwa sound between the "d" and the "l".)

[Frylock]

I'll tell you one I've never bought though:

I've seen blog entries by multiple linguists insisting that the vowel sound in "sing" is the same as the one in "sin."

To which I say:

No. Effing. Way..

But maybe this is my "truck."

[Frylock]

Okay, California jobcase and John Mace, I believe you guys. The linguist I quoted surmised that it might have to do with different ways that different people pronounce "r" -- "bunched" vs. "retroflex", as he put it.

I'm not an expert on this. I do think we have at least established that the "chruck" pronunciation is a lot more common than some people assume, while the "truck" pronunciation is at least somewhat more common than Frylock and I assumed.


I'm still thinking it's very close to zero. I didn't read the whole link--does the linguist attest to "t-truck" (as opposed to "ch-truck") being observed in natural conversational English?

[Baal Houtham]

Here's (http://literalminded.wordpress.com/category/phonetics-and-phonology/consonants/affricates/) one good discussion of the issue. I agree with you that it's not cut and dried, but you are way off with your "99.5%" figure. More along the lines of 50%, at most.

My 99.5% figure was based on Frylock's statement:
(Witness a friend of mine who insisted she pronounced 'truck' with an initial 't' sound rather than an initial 'ch' sound. But she didn't, and afaik, no one does.)

I'm not contending 99.5% of Americans pronounce the "t." I'm saying I won't stop believing that I pronounce the "t" unless given very strong evidence.

That 50% don't pronounce the "t" convinces me not a bit that I personally don't.

[california jobcase]

Isn't there a syllable between the It and ly in Italy?

Now, someone's going to tell me there are three syllables in athlete-

[John Mace]

I'll tell you one I've never bought though:

I've seen blog entries by multiple linguists insisting that the vowel sound in "sing" is the same as the one in "sin."

To which I say:

No. Effing. Way..

But maybe this is my "truck."

It's the same when I say them.

Try this: say each word, but catch yourself right after the "i" and pause. Don't say the whole word; just the first two letters.

The "n" sound in the two words is different. It's nasalized in "sing".

[JKellyMap]

That 50% don't pronounce the "t" convinces me not a bit that I personally don't.

Fair enough, but one hopes that it would at least make you a little curious about how you really pronounce it in un-self-conscious speech situations. But if you are positive that you NEVER pronounce it "ch", of course I believe you.

[JKellyMap]

Isn't there a syllable between the It and ly in Italy?

Now, someone's going to tell me there are three syllables in athlete-

Yes, and it's pronounced as a "schwa" (or, maybe, by some, that upside-down "v" thingy.)

Same with "athlete", although a large minority do actually pronounce this with something like two syllables (perhaps even a majority of British English speakers do).

I say "something like", because the whole concept of "syllable" is not easy to pin down, even by the very greatest experts in the field, as the late Peter Ladefoged explained well in The Sounds of the World's Languages.

[Frylock]

It's the same when I say them.

Try this: say each word, but catch yourself right after the "i" and pause. Don't say the whole word; just the first two letters.

Yeah, I've been through that. "Sing" has the "ee" sound. (Sorry, I still haven't bothered to learn how to type IPA!) If I stop before saying the "ng" then I end up saying "see," not "sih." (Where ih here is supposed to represent the "short i" sound.)

If I'm pronouncing this in some other way than I think I am, then

A. I am a monkey's uncle
B. I suspect I will never be able to learn to hear it accurately.

Like I said, this might by my chruck. ;)

(Regarding 'sing' though, one thing gumming up the works is I'm not sure I explicitly pronounce any vowel in that word when speaking naturally. It seems to be more like "sng" with my lips shaped for the "ee" sound while pronouncing the ng.)

[JKellyMap]

I'm still thinking it's very close to zero. I didn't read the whole link--does the linguist attest to "t-truck" (as opposed to "ch-truck") being observed in natural conversational English?

In the last sentence of the portion I quoted above, he conjectures this, yes -- attests, not quite. In fact, like you, he asks his linguist friends for hard evidence.

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

no one can pronounce a word like "idli" without inserting a schwa sound between the "d" and the "l".)

I think you are baddaly mistaken. (And I pronounce it "EED-lee.")

[JKellyMap]

Like I said, this might by my chruck. ;)


Well put. Everyone's got their chruck. Mine might be the "ch" sound itself (affricate) -- the idea that it's just "t" plus "sh", and deserves its own special treatment as a phone no more or less than, say, "x" (which is obviously just "s" plus "k").

I kind of buy the "t plus sh is ch" thing, though, so I guess that's not quite my chruck.

[Baal Houtham]

Fair enough, but one hopes that it would at least make you a little curious about how you really pronounce it in un-self-conscious speech situations. But if you are positive that you NEVER pronounce it "ch", of course I believe you.

That's more catty than called for.

[JKellyMap]

I think you are baddaly mistaken. (And I pronounce it "EED-lee.")

I stand corrected, then! But I think it's more about how both you and I are breaking down the same liquid "l" sound. When it serves as an obvious consonant, at the beginning of a syllable (as in "like"), no problem. But when it's in this sort of ambiguous position, as both the end of a "syllable" --duhl-- and the start of a "syllable" --lee--, it also has vowel aspects to it. (I think that might be what's called a "glide").

The same sort of problem comes up with words like "bird" and, well, "word". Some dictionaries give the pronunciation as "brd", others as "b<schwa>rd", and still others come up with some special symbol, typically an "e" with a little r-like curlicue, to represent this thing. The mouth is already in the "r" position even before you pronounce the "b" (!), yet most people "hear" some kind of vowel "before" the r.

Likewise, I bet that both you and I put our tongue in the "l" position (except maybe for the sides of the tongue) as we pronounce the "d" in "idli", so in a sense, you're right that we go right into the "l" after the "d". BUT that L simply CANNOT be pronounced without some sort of simultaneous "uh" sound, and that's the aspect of it that I perceive as a "schwa" (and as its own "syllable", which as I mentioned is a slippery concept perhaps best avoided.)

[Indistinguishable]

The "n" sound in the two words is different. It's nasalized in "sing".
"n"s are always nasal. It's a typical alveolar nasal in "sin", while the "ng" in "sing" is a velar nasal.

As for the vowels of "sin" vs. "sing", did those linguists say it was the same at a broad phonemic level or in all the full-on messy phonetic detail (question addressed to Frylock I suppose)? Because I also feel like there's some subtle difference there in my pronunciation, but not one of any note except in the narrowest of transcriptions.

[JKellyMap]

That's more catty than called for.

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way, honest! I see now that it might sound like I was accusing you of being "uncurious". My bad. All I meant was that one would hope that being told that a sizeable portion of English speakers pronounce something differently than you do, AND having it pointed out that your way of pronouncing it reflects how the words are spelled, AND having it mentioned that many people often think they pronounce something (in everyday speech) differently than they actually do BECAUSE of how they see it spelled, would lead one to at last consider the possibility that they were assessing their everyday pronunciation of said sound erroneously.

But if something in this doesn't apply in your case, fine. I was wrong.

[Indistinguishable]

I stand corrected, then! But I think it's more about how both you and I are breaking down the same liquid "l" sound. When it serves as an obvious consonant, at the beginning of a syllable (as in "like"), no problem. But when it's in this sort of ambiguous position, as both the end of a "syllable" --duhl-- and the start of a "syllable" --lee--, it also has vowel aspects to it. (I think that might be what's called a "glide").
I think the person you are responding to would not analyze "idli" as having a "duhl" syllable. It's just "id lee" (/Id li/); the first syllable has no /l/, the second syllable starts with /l/. Just like saying "badly" or "Kid Lee" or whatever else.

[JKellyMap]

Because I also feel like there's some subtle difference there in my pronunciation, but not one of any note except in the narrowest of transcriptions.

You bring up a very important point. Phonetic transcriptions, by nature, must be an approximation; and, for any one document, article, etc., the author or researcher must choose a particular "grain" or "scale", hopefully one appropriate to the question at hand or purpose of the work.

[JKellyMap]

I think the person you are responding to would not analyze "idli" as having a "duhl" syllable. It's just "id lee" (/Id li/); the first syllable has no /l/, the second syllable starts with /l/. Just like saying "badly" or "Kid Lee" or whatever else.

Understood, thanks. But for me, at least (maybe it's a New Yorker thing), "Italy" and "idli" are pronounced the same (assuming I go with a short "i" to start it). That is, when I'm talking fast, I'll tend to pronounce BOTH of them just as Biffy suggested -- no "uh". But when I'm talking slowly, I'll tend to pronounce BOTH of them as I suggested -- with an "uh".

Perhaps the analysis I made about having to insert an "uh" with the "l" is more universally germane when the "l" is, "by itself", unquestionably syllabic, as in beetle -- or, if you prefer, Beatle.

[Polerius]

Yeah, I can't even imagine how one would pronounce them differently that it would be audible to the listener. So any recorded examples would be great.
Here (http://soundkey.com/o6na5m) is me pronouncing the two words. I think there is a difference, although slight. It would be informative if people in this thread recorded how they say it so we can get an idea of the regional differences, which might be hard get across using text only.

I should say that, after reading the OP I thought "Of course they're different", but after saying the words multiple times, they are very close, and most likely as part of a full sentence they might become indistinguishable. So, I can see why they are classified as homophones.

Regarding 'truck', how does one pronounce it without saying 'chruck'? Any recorded examples?

[california jobcase]

For truck pronounced:
Here's a great online dictionary site: http://www.onelook.com/

Many of the dictionaries there have audio pronunciations.

BTW, I went through elementary school back when we were taught phonics every day through third grade and were required to use our dictionaries almost daily. That probably gives me a bias towards how we were taught to speak- the dictionary was the law, and our teachers vigorously corrected our diction in class.

Oh, and we used the system where long vowels had bars over them, and short ones had little u's over them, and the upside down e, the schwa. Systems since introduced annoy me.

[JKellyMap]

Here's a great online dictionary site: http://www.onelook.com/


Wow, that's cool, thanks! In ten seconds, this site made me realize that I'd neglected to include yet another way that many dictionaries phoneticize the middle sound in "bird": as an r-colored schwa. The first dictionary on the list does this as a schwa followed by a symbol that looks like two little stacked triangles pointing toward each other. Obviously, this is geared toward non-rhotic speakers (most of England, Boston, much of the Southern US....).

I doubt there are any standard dictionaries that go with a fifth choice, though -- an Archie Bunkeresque "boid". ;)

[guizot]

I say "something like", because the whole concept of "syllable" is not easy to pin down, even by the very greatest experts in the field...And that's because of the very nature of the distinction between consonants and vowels. Letters on a page look like neatly compartmentalized units, but the physiology of speech defies that. You cannot cluster many consonants without some voicing escaping between them, and that expulsion by default becomes a syllable. For those that doubted this but now see that it is so, a classic lesson in not letting the written version of a word lead you astray...That is, no one pronounces the "t" in Italy as a "t", but rather as a "d"; and, no one can pronounce a word like "idli" without inserting a schwa sound between the "d" and the "l".)That's because the shift or glide between articulating the alveolar flap (/ɾ/--not really a /d/) and the /l/ requires it. It's physiological, and no matter how it's written on paper, your mouth has to do it. The schwa is the voicing which escapes between the articulation of the two, no matter how quickly your tongue moves. And when you have voicing, you have a syllable.

[JKellyMap]

Regarding 'truck', how does one pronounce it without saying 'chruck'? Any recorded examples?

This is slightly off-topic, but, I hope, of interest...

One place I HAVE heard "tr--" pronounced just that way is in the Spanish of Costa Rica. Many Costa Rican Spanish speakers pronounce the "r" just as in English (this surprised me when I first heard it). But from what I've heard and recall, they keep the "t" as a "t" before the "r", i.e., in tractor (which is also a Spanish word.) Try it -- this requires you to push out your lips, almost as if you were to pronounce the "oo" sound.

[Frylock]

This is slightly off-topic, but, I hope, of interest...

One place I HAVE heard "tr--" pronounced just that way is in the Spanish of Costa Rica. Many Costa Rican Spanish speakers pronounce the "r" just as in English (this surprised me when I first heard it). But from what I've heard and recall, they keep the "t" as a "t" before the "r", i.e., in tractor (which is also a Spanish word.) Try it -- this requires you to push out your lips, almost as if you were to pronounce the "oo" sound.

In the Spanish I learned as a kid (which I take it is a standard Mexican dialect of some kind) the t sound is pronounced with no aspiration and with the tongue farther forward than in the English t. (Almost, but not quite, into 'th' territory.) If it's the same in Costa Rican spanish, then "tractor" with a (spanish) t seems pretty natural.

[JKellyMap]

The schwa is the voicing which escapes between the articulation of the two, no matter how quickly your tongue moves. And when you have voicing, you have a syllable.

Thanks -- well put! To be fair to Biffy, I suppose that, at some "grain" of phonetic transcription which is useful for many purposes, writing the sound in question as an "l" (with no schwa before it) would be acceptable, with the voicing you and I are talking about just assumed as coming along with the territory.

[JKellyMap]

In the Spanish I learned as a kid (which I take it is a standard Mexican dialect of some kind) the t sound is pronounced with no aspiration and with the tongue farther forward than in the English t. (Almost, but not quite, into 'th' territory.) If it's the same in Costa Rican spanish, then "tractor" with a (spanish) t seems pretty natural.

Great observation! I think that's exactly it. The further-forward pronunciation of the Spanish "t" allows it to avoid palatization when followed by an "r". And Costa Rica is the only place I know of (perhaps there are others) where this can be tested, because the Spanish "r" as pronounced everywhere else is a tap, flap, or trill, none of which encourages palatization of a preceding "t" (heck, it seems to me it precludes palatization).

[guizot]

...writing the sound in question as an "l" (with no schwa before it) would be acceptable, with the voicing you and I are talking about just assumed as coming along with the territory.Well, that's why the /l/ (and nasals such as /n/) are often referred to as "syllabic consonants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabic_consonant)":Many dialects of English may use syllabic consonants in words such as even [ˈiːvn̩], awful [ˈɔːfɫ̩] and rhythm [ˈɹɪðm̩], which are usually regarded as realizations of underlying sequences of schwa plus consonant (/ˈiːvən/ etc).

[JKellyMap]

Neat, thanks.

[Baal Houtham]

Regarding 'truck', how does one pronounce it without saying 'chruck'? Any recorded examples?

Hi Mr. Polerius. You were already linked to an audible dictionary, but I am mildly gobsmacked by the question. If you make a distinction between sense and cents, how can pronouncing truck with a TR be a mystery?

Do the chruck people also say Star Chrek and Chruble and Chreble? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way, honest!

No problem. It's life on a message board.

[JKellyMap]

Hi Mr. Polerius. You were already linked to an audible dictionary, but I am mildly gobsmacked by the question. If you make a distinction between sense and cents, how can pronouncing truck with a TR be a mystery?

While apparently it's very common to pronounce "cents" and "sense" the same, and less common (but still quite common) to pronounce "truck" as "chruck", it's not inconceivable that someone would do the latter but not the former.


Do the chruck people also say Star Chrek and Chruble and Chreble?

Speaking for myself -- "Star Chrek" -- Pretty much all the time. "Chreble" (for "treble") -- Most of the time, but not always. "Chruble" (for "trouble") -- Hmmm...I think maybe about 55% of the time.


No problem. It's life on a message board.

Chrue dat! ;)

[doreen]

Perhaps the analysis I made about having to insert an "uh" with the "l" is more universally germane when the "l" is, "by itself", unquestionably syllabic, as in beetle -- or, if you prefer, Beatle. I wasn't sure what you meant before, but get what you mean now. I'm not so sure that there's a need to insert the "uh" between the "t" and the "l" in "beetle". ( I can say "beetlee " just like I can say "idlee")) I suspect this is an example of a change in either spelling or pronunciation over time.

[Frylock]

Hi Mr. Polerius. You were already linked to an audible dictionary,

That was supposed to be an example of someone not saying "chruck"?!

I ask because the the linked-to entry contains a recording of someone quite manifestingly pronouncing the initial sound as "ch" and not "t".

Do the chruck people also say Star Chrek and Chruble and Chreble? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Yes.

[Baal Houtham]

That was supposed to be an example of someone not saying "chruck"?!

I ask because the the linked-to entry contains a recording of someone quite manifestingly pronouncing the initial sound as "ch" and not "t".


I've been having some problems with my left ear for the past few days, and I'm using the built in speakers in my iMac, but I hear Truck with a TR. Maybe a poll is in order.

And JKellyMap, my surprise was not that Polerius said chruck, but that he should have difficulty imagining how to pronounce it with a tr sound.

[JKellyMap]

I wasn't sure what you meant before, but get what you mean now. I'm not so sure that there's a need to insert the "uh" between the "t" and the "l" in "beetle". ( I can say "beetlee " just like I can say "idlee")) I suspect this is an example of a change in either spelling or pronunciation over time.

See Guizot's post #60...There definitely is an "uh" in there (even though your mouth is pretty much already in position for the "l"), but it's only sometimes included in phonetic transcriptions, because it's such a predictable part of its 'environment'.

So, it was never pronounced without the "uh" (physical impossibility).

[JKellyMap]

And JKellyMap, my surprise was not that Polerius said chruck, but that he should have difficulty imagining how to pronounce it with a tr sound.

Ah, got it. Thanks.

[jsgoddess]

I say chruck. Well, I'll be.

[Baal Houtham]

Poll Here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=619424). It covers who says what and how they hear the audible dictionary's version.

[doreen]

See Guizot's post #60...There definitely is an "uh" in there (even though your mouth is pretty much already in position for the "l"), but it's only sometimes included in phonetic transcriptions, because it's such a predictable part of its 'environment'.

So, it was never pronounced without the "uh" (physical impossibility). There may be an imperceptible (at least to me ) "uh" in "idlee" or "badly" but it's definitely not the same as the very obvious vowel ( I've heard it as "uh" , "ih" or "eh") in "beetle"'.

[JKellyMap]

There may be an imperceptible (at least to me ) "uh" in "idlee" or "badly" but it's definitely not the same as the very obvious vowel ( I've heard it as "uh" , "ih" or "eh") in "beetle"'.

Agreed. That wasn't what I understood you to mean when you wrote, "I'm not so sure that there's a need to insert the "uh" between the "t" and the "l" in "beetle"."

[doreen]

Agreed. That wasn't what I understood you to mean when you wrote, "I'm not so sure that there's a need to insert the "uh" between the "t" and the "l" in "beetle"."What I meant (sorry I wasn't clear) is that because it's such an obvious sound, I don't think it's an example of needing to insert an "uh" as with "idli" and "badly" but rather an example of a word that always had the pronounced "uh" but probably used to be spelled differently . I checked and it is - the word comes from the Middle English "betylle" and the Old English "bitela".

[Acsenray]

Yeah, I've been through that. "Sing" has the "ee" sound. (Sorry, I still haven't bothered to learn how to type IPA!) If I stop before saying the "ng" then I end up saying "see," not "sih." (Where ih here is supposed to represent the "short i" sound.)

There are some American accents in which this occurs, most notably Appalachian accents. Very often this kind of accent Also pronounces "milk" as "melk."

[Frylock]

There are some American accents in which this occurs, most notably Appalachian accents. Very often this kind of accent Also pronounces "milk" as "melk."

I'm from DFW, I say "seeng" and "milk."

I really hope I can find a clip or something of someone unquesitonably saying "sing" with a short i. I've never been able to identify an instance of it... but maybe I'm just not hearing it accurately.

Is there some popular song that has a long "siiiiiiing" in it? If so, maybe if I could listen to clips of people singing that song...

[JKellyMap]

.... I checked and it is - the word comes from the Middle English "betylle" and the Old English "bitela".

Awesome -- good sleuthing!

[Cayuga]

I grew up on the north shore of Long Island, and do not have a Lawn Guyland accent.

1) I sat "truck." In high school, we had one friend who said "chruck" (and "chree," and "Star Chrek"), and we would sometimes kid him about it. But the rest of us said "truck."

1a) It is a different sound. When I say the word, I start off with the tip of my tongue on the roof of my mouth. Mike would start off with the front part of his tongue — just behind the tip — on the roof of his mouth.

2) I say "seeng" and "milk."

3) I hear the difference in Polerius's pronunciation of "cents" and "sense." I do the same thing if, for some reason, I have to make clear which of the two I'm saying, or if I'm emphasizing the word for some other reason (ditto "adolescents/ce" and "residents/ce"), but in usual speech they probably sound the same.

3a) Bravo for making and posting the recording. Wish I knew how to do that.

4) I was certain that I said "idli, "badly," and "Kid Lee" in two syllables, but now I'm not so sure.

5) "Beetle," though, is definitely two syllables. My tongue doesn't even move; just my cheeks do.

[Baal Houtham]

Is there some popular song that has a long "siiiiiiing" in it? If so, maybe if I could listen to clips of people singing that song...

How about the Carpenters doing Sing A Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LYekeK0HWo)?

[JKellyMap]

How about the Carpenters doing Sing A Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LYekeK0HWo)?

Not good enough for anyone else to hear.

Kidding. But seriously...

I hear the "iiii" there as rather "short". I think by "short" we mean with a "lax" mouth position, the tongue rather low along the central groove, the lips not smiling. If I try to make it "eee", I sound like someone whose first language is, say, Spanish or French.

(Could Frylock's supposed pronunciation be influenced by Texan Spanish? I doubt it, but I thought I'd throw it out there.)

[Frylock]

Not good enough for anyone else to hear.

Kidding. But seriously...

I hear the "iiii" there as rather "short".

Yes, me too. Thanks for pointing this out--now I understand, at least, what people are talking about when they say it's not an ee sound. What she's singing sounds completely natural--and it's definitely the "short i".

(Could Frylock's supposed pronunciation be influenced by Texan Spanish? I doubt it, but I thought I'd throw it out there.)

No idea if it's an influence from Spanish. But a poster above said that the "ee" pronunciation can be found in the Appalachians, which to me means "hillbilly," which you also find in Arkansas, which is not too far away from where I lived. So based on that tenuous set of stereotypes strung together, I feel the pronunciation is possibly explained.

[Peremensoe]

I'm also dubious that there's anyone who speaks English who pronounces these words differently. It's very common for people to think they pronounce things one way when in fact they don't. (Witness a friend of mine who insisted she pronounced 'truck' with an initial 't' sound rather than an initial 'ch' sound. But she didn't, and afaik, no one does.)

How do you know that your perception to this effect isn't a function of your perception?

I've heard people say things where they and I could hear certain letters in their pronunciation, but third parties insisted they weren't there.

The most reasonable assumption to me is that, for certain sounds and constructions, everyone is that third party in some cases; that nobody without considerable training to this end can hear all possible pronunciations.

[Sage Rat]

So far as the OP goes, I do pronounce the t sound, but I pronounce it for both words. This isn't because I'm actually pronouncing a t sound, but because you block the air off from your lips with your tongue when you make the n sound, releasing the pressure to issue an s's hiss causes a t sound between the two. It's unavoidable.

[JKellyMap]

So far as the OP goes, I do pronounce the t sound, but I pronounce it for both words. This isn't because I'm actually pronouncing a t sound, but because you block the air off from your lips with your tongue when you make the n sound, releasing the pressure to issue an s's hiss causes a t sound between the two. It's unavoidable.

Well put. A couple of previous posts have explained this already, but I think your way of explaining it might be the clearest so far.