Talk:Comparison of General American and Received Pronunciation

Refactored

In 2009 the present article (Differences between General American and Received Pronunciation) was refactored out of American and British English pronunciation differences as a consequence of discussion at Talk:American and British English pronunciation differences#Move?. jnestorius^(talk) 06:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to propose that it be put back. The main article is essentially based on exactly the same accent as the one used for this article, and it seems there is absolutely nothing to lose by moving this material (suitably edited and corrected) into the main article. Does anyone object? RoachPeter (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I object. The article American and British English pronunciation differences is more about individual words rather than vowel classes. This article is more about vowel classes.LakeKayak (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the main reasons for merging the two is that there is material in 'Differences between General American and Received Pronunciation' that would enhance the article on 'American and British English pronunciation differences'. At the moment we have information about the same two accents split between two articles. That surely cannot be helpful to readers. RoachPeter (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the two pages aren't talking about the same idea. I think accent-based differences and word-perception (due to lack of better term) differences are two different concepts entirely. I have found content on the page American and British English pronunciation differences that probably is more suitable for this page, e.g., cases of yod-dropping and -coalescence. However, I don't think that these mistakes justify the merge.LakeKayak (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't follow this argument. Could somebody please make a judgement about my proposal that the two articles should be merged? RoachPeter (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

After actually thinking about it, it may be result in only more problems. For example, currently, there is the section "Single differences" on the page American and British pronunciation differences. If we merged the two pages, I think there would some confusion over which sections are referring to lexicon classes and which are referring to the narrow IPA notation. This page refers consistently to the narrow IPA notation. However, some sections on the other page refer to the broad IPA notation, like the section "Single differences." If we merged the pages, would a word like "go" be erroneously instated with the British pronunciation as {{IPA|/əʊ/ and the American as /oʊ/? If we get another editor like the anonymous man from Chicago, i.e. 2602:306:ce6a:4dd0:f405:c9cb:891f:6bf6, we probably would.LakeKayak (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It's quite hard to have a discussion about this if we are not using the same terminology. Probably the best source for how to describe the phenomena being discussed here is John Wells' book 'Accents of English', and I would always follow this. His description is in the standard framework of academic phonetics and phonology used throughout the world. You talk about "broad IPA notation" and "narrow IPA notation". In most writing about phonetics and phonology, "narrow IPA notation" refers to phonetic differences (symbols in square brackets) and "broad IPA notation" refers to phonemic differences (symbols in slant brackets). But this article, which you say is about narrow IPA notation, is all about phonemes and phonemic contrasts; it is essentially about systemic differences in the phonemes and phonemic contrasts of the two accents (GA and RP), and this is an area of the topic of American and British English pronunciation differences which is missing from the other article. So this article would fit perfectly well as a separate section early in the article, before it gets on to individual lexical differences. That's why I want to see the two merged. While this is being discussed, I am going to try to improve the present article. RoachPeter (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

/ˈɪʃuː/

I'm pretty damn sure that GAm pronounces "issue" as /ˈɪʃjuː/, not /ˈɪʃuː/. N'est-ce pas? -- Y not? 00:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Speakers don't make a difference between /ʃ/ and /ʃj/ in this context. In my experience, dictionaries typically omit the /j/, though it is certainly present for some speakers at least some of the time. Since there's variation, I'd rather go with what dictionaries using IPA put. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that without yod-coalescence the word would be pronounced [ɪsju]. Most logically with yod-coalescence, [sj] would become [ʃ]. Also, I think I tend to hear [ɪʃu] more than [ɪsju]. That's my own personal take on it.LakeKayak (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Glottal stop

British people usually use glottal stop

You mean some British people? Cockneys? Dbfirs 07:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean glo'al? :) DBaK (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

flapping

I agree that a fully aspirated t (in words like "better" and "butter") would be regarded as pedantic by most Americans. However, there is a more "careful" pronunciation: this involves dividing the t and the aspiration between the syllables: thus, "better" would sound like "bet her." (This pronunciation is illustrated in the old rhyme (dating from 1917 at the latest): Brown has a lovely baby girl, The stork left her with a flutter; Brown named her "Oleomargarine," for he hadn't any but her.) This pronunciation might be used when you want to make it clear what word you're using. ("I said 'latter' ('lat-her'), not 'ladder.'") Kostaki mou (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source? If you happen to have a source, it may be worth noting in the article.LakeKayak (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as the "divided" pronunciation I noted, aside from the poem, I have no source except observation of my own and others' pronunciations, though I'm sure I'm not the only who has noticed this. In addition, I would say that in the "divided" pronunciation, the t would be realized as a voiceless flap or, alternatively, as an unexploded t. As for the poem, it is quoted in full in The Literary Digest for November 3, 1917; High School Life, Volume 18 page 116, from October of the same year; and several other publications from the same year or soon afterwards. Those I mention attribute it to Penn State Froth, a humor magazine of that university founded in 1909 and published from 1910 to 1985. I don't know if the author is known. Kostaki mou (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

On further reflection, the unexploded t would only be used between words (in "but her," but not in "butter." The voiceless flap might be used in either case. Kostaki mou (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)