Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cognomen's Cassowary" data-source="post: 7268145" data-attributes="member: 6801445">Sorry, but you are a little off base here. From your other posts, it sounds like you have extrapolated a rule out of a useful if exaggerated demonstration for language-learners. However, there are fourteen phonotactic constraints (about as close to &quot;rules&quot; as it gets in linguistics) in English, and a requirement that every syllable have a consonantal onset is not one.&quot;PEE ya no&quot; is certainly not how the word is pronounced. Most obviously, the stress is put on the second syllable. It is possible that it occurs on the first in some dialects [southern US?], but I believe that every national standard puts it on the second. I have no difficulty pronouncing it without a &quot;y&quot; sound, and placing the &quot;n&quot; in the onset of the final syllable either lengthens the &quot;a&quot; or gives the &quot;n&quot; a geminated sound, which is against the &quot;rules&quot; in English. I pronounce it, with my broadcast-standard &quot;American&quot; (i.e., Iowa) accent, &quot;pee AN o-oo&quot;, or, in IPA /pi'æn.oʊ/.With &quot;going,&quot; I put the break after the /ʊ/, whether it is suffixed with &quot;-ing&quot; or not. (Okay, I can put it after the /o/, but it sounds like I'm putting on a foreign accent, because English loves its diphthongs.) The only native speakers I have heard put a /w/ in &quot;going&quot; even semi-regularly are Minnesotans, but then they also sometimes manage to fit one into &quot;don't.&quot; Again allowing that a &quot;w&quot; sound may sometimes occur in rapid speech and in some dialects, I don't think that you will find one recorded in any national standard. If what you are saying were correct, there would be no appreciable difference between, &quot;Go in the house,&quot; and &quot;Go win the house.&quot; Granted, it is a distinction that is likely to give non-native speakers fits, but it is there./aɪ æm 'goʊ.ɪŋ tu ə 'pɑɹ.ti/ (The American &quot;u&quot; is not actually in the cardinal position, and I could go drag up the specific symbol for it. . . . but let's not be pedantic.)There are counter examples to your rule both contemporary--any vowel following a schwa, such as &quot;mega apples&quot; or &quot;omega epsilon&quot; or &quot;tuba eater,&quot; seems unfit for a &quot;y&quot; or a &quot;w&quot; onset--and historical--&quot;an apron&quot; was once &quot;a napron,&quot; but the sound migrated and the spelling changed.The thing is, there is some linking as you are describing, particularly with fricatives, approximants, and nasals, and I could see where this practice of interposing approximants between vowels could help non-native speakers to get from one to the next more fluidly and avoid unnatural pauses. Still, that doesn't make it a rule any more than, for example, &quot;'did you' is always elided into 'didjou.'&quot; I think you will find a large number of native speakers do not speak the way you have described.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cognomen's Cassowary, post: 7268145, member: 6801445"] Sorry, but you are a little off base here. From your other posts, it sounds like you have extrapolated a rule out of a useful if exaggerated demonstration for language-learners. However, there are fourteen phonotactic constraints (about as close to "rules" as it gets in linguistics) in English, and a requirement that every syllable have a consonantal onset is not one. "PEE ya no" is certainly not how the word is pronounced. Most obviously, the stress is put on the second syllable. It is possible that it occurs on the first in some dialects [southern US?], but I believe that every national standard puts it on the second. I have no difficulty pronouncing it without a "y" sound, and placing the "n" in the onset of the final syllable either lengthens the "a" or gives the "n" a geminated sound, which [I]is[/I] against the "rules" in English. I pronounce it, with my broadcast-standard "American" (i.e., Iowa) accent, "pee AN o-oo", or, in IPA /pi'æn.oʊ/. With "going," I put the break after the /ʊ/, whether it is suffixed with "-ing" or not. (Okay, I [I]can[/I] put it after the /o/, but it sounds like I'm putting on a foreign accent, because English loves its diphthongs.) The only native speakers I have heard put a /w/ in "going" even semi-regularly are Minnesotans, but then they also sometimes manage to fit one into "don't." Again allowing that a "w" sound may sometimes occur in rapid speech and in some dialects, I don't think that you will find one recorded in any national standard. If what you are saying were correct, there would be no appreciable difference between, "Go in the house," and "Go win the house." Granted, it is a distinction that is likely to give non-native speakers fits, but it is there. /aɪ æm 'goʊ.ɪŋ tu ə 'pɑɹ.ti/ (The American "u" is not actually in the cardinal position, and I could go drag up the specific symbol for it. . . . but let's not be pedantic.) There are counter examples to your rule both contemporary--any vowel following a schwa, such as "mega apples" or "omega epsilon" or "tuba eater," seems unfit for a "y" or a "w" onset--and historical--"an apron" was once "a napron," but the sound migrated and the spelling changed. The thing is, there is [I]some[/I] linking as you are describing, particularly with fricatives, approximants, and nasals, and I could see where this practice of interposing approximants between vowels could help non-native speakers to get from one to the next more fluidly and avoid unnatural pauses. Still, that doesn't make it a rule any more than, for example, "'did you' is always elided into 'didjou.'" I think you will find a large number of native speakers do not speak the way you have described. [/QUOTE]

Verification