My 99.5% figure was based on Frylock’s statement:
[INDENT](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.)[/INDENT]
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.
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-
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”.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
I think you are baddaly mistaken. (And I pronounce it “EED-lee.”)
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.
That’s more catty than called for.
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.)
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here 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?
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.
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”.
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.
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.