January 27

In preparation for making Japanese versions of some JAL123 diagram images, what are the Japanese words for the following:?

"Route of Japan Airlines Flight 123"

"Explosion site"

"Rear pressure bulkhead of the Boeing 747"

"Part A" "Part B"

"Repairs carried out correctly"

"Repairs carried out incorrectly"

"Diagram of the incorrect repair"

Thank you very much, WhisperToMe (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Route of Japan Airlines Flight 123" 123便の飛行経路
"Explosion site"　異常事態発生時の飛行位置
"Rear pressure bulkhead of the Boeing 747" ボーイング747型機の後部圧力隔壁 I think the term is aft pressure bulkhead in en.
"Part A" "Part B" Aren't they "fig.A" and "fig.B"? If so, they would be "図A" and "図B".
"Repairs carried out correctly"　適切な修理
"Repairs carried out incorrectly"　不適切な修理
"Diagram of the incorrect repair" 不適切な修理の図解 Oda Mari (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Part A" refers to a portion of the bulkhead, and "Part B" refers to the rest. The first figure has the correct repair style, and the second figure has the incorrect repair style. Please see File:Spoiny English.svg

Anyway, thank you very much! For the tip about "Aft pressure bulkhead" I'll run them by the aviation WikiProject WhisperToMe (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Part A" "Part B" would be "パート A" and "パート B".Oda Mari (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! WhisperToMe (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should be getting wikipedia in English, I'm in the United States and always got it in English, but now I get it in Chinese it only happens with Firefox browser. I've tried clearing my cookies at least 5 times and rebooting each time but I still get it in Chinese. I get it in English on Safari browser. What can I do to get English back on my wikipedia on my FireFox browser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.106.252 (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can get Wikipedia in any language on any browser, just by using the right link. If you want any useful advice, you will have to explain exactly what action you take that gives you Chinese in Firefox. Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might get better answer from the Computer Ref Desk. Is the web site still "en.wikipedia.org", or something else ? StuRat (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you type (or paste) http://en.wikipedia.org/ into the address bar, what happens? If you access it via a bookmark, it could be that the bookmark has been changed/corrupted (inspect the bookmark and see if the URL starts "en.wikipedia" or "zh.wikipedia"). You could also try searching Wikipedia from the Firefox search bar.

Otherwise, it might be a virus, trojan, or rogue firefox plug-in. You could try running Firefox in safe mode (if you have the normal installation, this should be an option from the start menu); this will disable any extensions or plug-ins that might be causing problems. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By "getting" do you mean in Google Search? The problem might lie there instead. Try to see if you've changed any location and/or language settings or if you've somehow blocked the English Wikipedia.

Firefox is my primary browser and for me, at most, the second most frequent Wikipedia that shows up on Google Search is the German Wikipedia (which makes sense as it's the second largest). It might also be simply that you are searching for something that has an article on the Chinese Wikipedia but not on the English Wikipedia or any other Wikipedias. It happens frequently, especially on subjects that are more familiar to speakers of a certain language than to English.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you go to Google or other pages, are you getting it in English or Chinese? Are you currently in an English speaking country, or a Chinese-speaking country? If I start up my computer in a Francophone country, the internet sites tend to default to French. After I use them in English, the cookies generally remember that though. Another thing to check is to go to Edit → Preferences → Content (third tab from left for me), and where it says languages, click "Choose". There you can order your language preferences. Therefore if a website is available in English and Chinese, it should automatically choose English if you have that listed first. If you don't read Chinese, you can take it off the list. If the tabs and buttons don't say exactly what I said they do, bear with me, for I am not using Firefox in English at the moment. Falconus^{p t c} 11:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with this guy? Is he telling people that his surname is pronounced BAY-ner just so they won't pronounce it like "boner"? I can't see an etymological reason for it... 80.122.178.68 (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Boehner" is a German surname, which in Germany would be written "Böhner". It wouldn't really be pronounced BAY-ner, but it wouldn't be BOH-ner either. "ö", in a standard German accent, is a

anglicize the sound of it. Perhaps he (or his ancestors) didn't want to be called "Boner", perhaps they just thought BAY-ner sounded closer to Böhner than BOH-ner. Smurrayinchester 13:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Burner as pronounced in

General American is actually reasonably close. Some people get very exercised about the claim that there is no r sound in the umlaut-o, but I think it is actually very close to the r-coloring used in an American rhotic accent. We went over this at the talk:Kurt Gödel page and a native speaker posted a sound file; to my ear the r sound is extremely clear. I had let myself be told there was no r sound and tried to say Gödel consciously without it, but I would actually have gotten closer if I had included it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps they were just worried people would start calling him Kurt Girdle? Smurrayinchester 23:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, girdle as pronounced in General American is really pretty close to correct.

On reflection, for Boehner, a better General American respelling would be Berna, because the final r is not pronounced in German. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)In the first place, John Boehner, like anybody else, is entitled to ask people to pronounce his name however he likes, and is under no obligation to account to you or any other rude person why he does so.

In the second place, this is an established way of pronouncing American names of German origin that originally contained the sound /ø/ (written "ö" or "oe"). For example, I have heard Barry Boehm's name pronounced as though spelt "Bame". This is not surprising phonetically: the original sound is a mid front rounded vowel, which does not exist in most varieties of English. Perhaps under the influence of the spelling, many people would anglicise it by dropping the "front" feature, producing a mid back rounded vowel, or /o/ (phonetically [oʊ] or [əʊ]), but it is just as parsimonious to drop the "rounded" feature, producing a mid front unrounded vowel, /e/. --ColinFine (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's an English spelling pronunciation; that doesn't seem very intuitive. I think it's fairly close to some varieties of German, broadly construed, particularly Yiddish (compare

bay mir bistu sheyn

, which would be bei mir bist du schön in standard German. --19:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In Germany, people often pronounce standard German ö and ü "unrounded", so Böhner equals Behner and Güngerich equals Gingerich. Pronounciations like Bohner or Goongerich never occur. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know a couple with the last name Boehner; they pronounce it as if it were spelled Bonner. LadyofShalott 20:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 18:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Camp Lejeune had similar problems. People prounced (and still do) his name wrong; he gave up trying to correct people. Americans want to pronounce it "Luh-JUNE" like the month, but the "jeu" is pronounced more like the "sur" in measure, being Cajun French. People still don't get it right. --Jayron32 20:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

As in "luh-ZHOON", right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of examples of German ö and ü being pronounced like e and i in

Also there's Matt Groening, whose surname rhymes with raining. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The song "Danke Schoen", Wayne Newton's signature tune, which he also rhymes with "rain". Americans often do that with the German "oe". But with some names, they pronounce it closer to the German, as with "Goerbels", the Nazi, often pronounced "Gerbels" (only with a hard-G as in "get", not a softer G like in the rodent). If you say it the "French way", with the non-rhotic R, it seems to be just about right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's even closer if you make it rhotic. See my remarks above on Goedel. --Trovatore (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I've noticed in German text - particularly in adverts and slogans - is that puns are highlighted by putting brackets/parentheses around the key letters. The Twilight book series for instance all have titles "Bis(s) zu..."; the first book for instance is Bis(s) zum Morgengrauen, which is either "Until Dawn" or something like "Bite to Dawn", depending on whether the (s) is included. Likewise, the new European Central Bank building is designed by a firm called "Coop Himmelb(l)au" - "sky blue" or "sky building" - and I've seen puns along the lines of "ich (b)rauche Zigaretten" too. So basically I'm wondering if this is an established way of using wordplay in German, or is it just marketing-speak that would never be used in standard, proper German?

As a bonus question, what's the wordplay in "jederman(n)"? There's a restuarant with that name in Frankfurt, and a Google search finds hundreds of thousands of results for other people using that exact same wordplay, but "jederman" doesn't show up in any dictionaries. Is it just a half-hearted attempt to hide the sexism in using "every man" to mean "everyone"? Smurrayinchester 14:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not really aware of this type of puns until I read your question. It is a kind of new-speak or new-fangled writing or marketing-speak or eye-catcher that was not used say ten years ago. The example Bis zum Morgengrauen and Biss zum Morgengrauen needs brackets to mark the pun, otherwise it would pass unnoticed, for Bis zum Morgengrauen and Biss zum Morgengrauen both make perfect sense. Note that Biss was written Biß before 1996. The jederman(n) is a pun with the new-fangled (and not yet received) word jederman. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that it's at least partly a commercialization of the "postmodernist parentheses" associated with people like Julia Kristeva and Roland Barthes (if I remember correctly -- there doesn't seem to be anything about it on their articles)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I came across the word "accountred" in a quote in

• See User_talk:Drmies#Sorry_about_that for some arguments/links. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no etymological justification for the "n" in "accountred", and "accountred" cannot be derived from "accoutre". "Accoutre" is derived from an earlier French form "acostrer". Looks like a simple typo for "accoutred". As for etymology, see here: [[1]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely a typo for "accoutred", so LadyofShalott you were right but took out the wrong letter in your "correction". Roger (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<--I can accept a typo, but not this many, with this as a recent example. Almost all of them occur in the same context--of military accoutrement, so to speak: "well accountred with good horses, sword and pistolls". I'm going to see if the OED has a "contact us" link. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• They do; I'm awaiting their answer. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When a misspelling has some sort of logic behind it, however mistaken, it may appear more frequently than simply a random typo or misprint. The OED does mention that "The early Scots form accomptir seems to have arisen from misreading (by minim confusion) of an original accouterit as acconterit , and misidentification of the resulting string accont- as a form of account n. or account v." The texts you referenced aren't in Early Scots, but those authors (or their publishers) could have made a similar mistake. Still, I'd be interested to here what the OED editors say. Lesgles (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The search through Google eBooks yields 190,000 hits for accoutred (meaning clothed, and often in the military context, e.g. "accoutred in a suit of armor"), 34,600 accoutered, 315 acoutred, 239 accountred, 59 accutered, 52 accutred, 40 acoutered. Could be that ..outred sounds too foreign for a British ear and a n is sometimes inserted by accident. Or, as Lesgles says, it gets confused with accountered. I'm not sure if accountered is even a valid word. Some books use it to mean encountered, others use it to mean accounted, and a few even use it to meen dressed: "A tall, long-legged Hoosier from Jasper county, Indiana, distinguished by a little head perched on a crane's neck— accountered with a swallow tailed coat, and pantaloons that refused to be coaxed down to his ankles..."--Itinerant1 (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the answer from the OED folks is in (a bit modified for layout):

Dear Professor x

Thank you for your email to the Oxford English Dictionary. I have forwarded your query to the relevant editorial team here to see if they have any further information about this word. As you say, "accountred" does not currently appear in the OED, although we are only now embarking on the revision of entries under "A" in the ongoing revision of the dictionary (more information about this can be found at: http://www.oed.com/public/oed3/rewriting-the-oed)

In the meantime, I will forward you the link to our entry for "accoutre" which may be of interest to you. The link is valid for three days.

Best wishes

Juliet Evans

A second email gave a free link to the entry for "accoutre"; I will quote some salient parts for those without access, though Lesgles has brought up most of these points already.

Accoutre, trans. To provide with accoutrements; to dress or attire, esp. impressively; to equip, array. Freq. in past participle. [Many forms are listed, incl.] 16 accowtre, also Sc. pre-17 accomptir (prob. transmission error). [Under etymology:] A number [sic] suggestions have been made as to the origin of the French verb. Two of the most plausible involve development from (a) an unattested post-classical Latin form*accons(u)turare < classical Latin ac- ac- prefix + post-classical Latin consutura consuture n., [I cite this because of the "n" in this unattested form. The etymology entry continues:] The early Scots form accomptir seems to have arisen from misreading (by minim confusion) of an original accouterit as acconterit , and misidentification of the resulting string accont- as a form of account n. or account v. (compare β. forms at those entries).

So I think we have our answer there: from acconterit, which is a historically attested misreading of accouterit, and seems to have gained and kept some currency in (IMO) a military context. Lesgles, it would be interesting to trace the forms in American English, to see if (watch me hypothesize) a. they regularly occur in the South rather than in the rest of the country and b. if one could find an ancestor who brought it into the South--some Scottish writer like Scott, who was so widely read by those who would go to war for a cause that was always already lost. Lady, I'm sure you are aware of the love that Southerners still have for Scottishness--weren't you at a Burns Night the other day? Drmies (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. It does sound as if this could be a holdover from the Scots. Tracking the usage... a future publication for you, Drmies? (Yes, you know I heard songs by Rantin' Robbie the other night!) LadyofShalott 02:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am translating an ad from Hungarian to British English. The last sentence, sentence for invitation is We appreciate your patronage." Is it used in British English or just in American? How to write propper in BE that We are looking forward to you? --Ksanyi (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of UK English, but in US English that phrase sounds a bit formal. "We appreciate your business" would be more typical, these days. StuRat (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Stu: in US English it sounds rather formal, and would probably be used only if you're pitching to an upper-class (real or imagined) clientele. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Looking forward to doing business with you"? That is if the ad is aimed at businesses. If aimed at the general public, perhaps "Looking forward to serving you." or "Looking forward to meeting your needs." might be better. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Looking forward to ...." as a standalone phrase without a subject sounds like a very informal personal note from one individual to another. I really don't think it's appropriate in an advertisement. I would recommend "We look forward to serving you." or "We look forward to meeting your needs." Can a native writer of UK English confirm? Marco polo (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can give the UK view, and say that "We appreciate your patronage" would be considered a little formal, but by no means wrong. I would probably expect to see it in a letter, rather than an advertisement, though. A quick check of Google autocomplete for "We look forward to" suggests "We look forward to seeing you", or "We look forward to welcoming you to..." (I would recommend the second only if the business is a hotel, guest house or similar. The first should work for all businesses). And I would suggest NOT using "Looking forward to meeting your needs", which to me comes across as rather a double entendre - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - unless, of course, your advert is going in a London phone box. Alansplodge (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary feature this strange transcription of the word "pronouncing", namely prə'naʊnt.sɪŋ , on its cover?

Where do educated native speakers of English pronounce this word with /t/ sound? I have consulted many dictionaries but they all have no /t/... 46.120.61.184 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All native speakers of English pronounce the word with a "t" sound. I can't think of any exceptions. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not a derivative of the verb "pronounce", for which dictionaries give prə'naʊns and NOT prə'naʊnts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.120.61.184 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. And all native speakers pronounce "pronounce" with a "t" sound, too. It's practically impossible not to, because the "n" is released in English. I have no problem saying the word "anons" in Polish without a "t" sound, but that's because "n" is not released in Polish. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a weird thread. I don't think I make a "t" sound in pronounce. I've never considered the possibility that anybody else does. And what's Polish got to do with it? I'm Australian, BTW. We like to think we speak English here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following this logic, the word "pronunciation" should have the /t/ sound as well. So I went to Oxford Dictionary site, recorded the sound and played it very slowly. No sign of /t/. I can hear precisely /n/ followed by /s/. Besides, why all other dictionaries transcribe it as prə'naʊns and NOT prə'naʊnts? Daniel Jones himself in his earlier published dictionary did not insert /t/46.120.61.184 (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native American English speaker and I don't make a /t/ sound in "pronounce", "pronouncing" or "pronunciation". I think I've heard some people do it but not enough that I would consider it standard (i.e. expect it to appear in a dictionary). RamsesWPE (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually on the cover, and I find it rather strange 46.120.61.184 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does "France" rhyme with "ants" for you? If so, you pronounce "pronounce" with a "ts" sound, like in "Tsar" or "cats". What I do find weird about the transcription on the cover is that they separate the "t" and "s", which is odd because they are not pronounced separately, but as a single consonant cluster. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Ants" has a "t" in it. I say it with a "t". "France" doesn't, so I don't. "Tsar" is a terrible example. I can imagine much debate over that one. HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Australians not say: "I see London. I see France. I see HiLo's underpants"? Or do they say it and not consider it a rhyme? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that ditty. I wouldn't regard it as evidence that "France" has a "t" sound in it. I'll acknowledge that there are many variations on even Australian English. In some versions of English (not just in Australia) the vowel sounds in "France" and "underpants" wouldn't rhyme at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Dominus said, it's a single consonant. It's a voiceless alveolar affricate, which happens to consist of the sounds we usually write separately as "t" and "s". If you don't think you pronounce a "t" sound in any of these words, well, great, but you do, and this is why people are unreliable sources for the sounds they think they make. Spelling sometimes has nothing to do with the actual phonology of the language. If you didn't make a "t" sound in "pronounce", it would come out like "pronouns". (Another good example - do you think there is an "s" in "pronouns"? There isn't!) Adam Bishop (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people are pretty confident considering they've not given a single reliable source. The OED is the only dictionary I can find that gives a transcription of "pronouncing": it says "Brit. /prəˈnaʊnsɪŋ/ , U.S. /prəˈnaʊnsɪŋ/" (see "pronouncing, n."). --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to learning here. I found this preview of the Australian dance movie "Strictly Ballroom", so the words "dance" and "dancing" are used a lot. A variety of Australian accents there. I'd agree the "t" is apparent in several places, but in some places I can't hear it at all. For example, the usage at 34 seconds in doesn't seem to have a "t". Thoughts? HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I heard a clear "ts" everywhere except at :34, where I didn't here an "n", either. It sounds like she is saying "dassing" to me. I'm not sure if it's a regular feature of her speach, or if it's because she is out of breath and talking fast. I'm not quite sure about 1:18. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. D.V., you say that "/n/ is released in English". So what? Of course it is released, otherwise we'd have 2 glottal stops inside the word "pronouncing"! The sonorant /n/ can be smoothly released into fricative /s/. Introducing plosive /t/ between them is not natural and surely not necessary 46.120.61.184 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After giving the matter some thought I am rather confident that native English speakers can pronounce /ns/ without turning it into /nts/. There's no intrinsic difficulty in that. So. If there's an affricate in this word, why the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary is the only one to record it in transcription? IPA transcription has nothing to do with spelling, so why is it prə'naʊns everywhere except Cambridge? 46.120.61.184 (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That "smooth release" is exactly what we don't do in English, and an n that's "smooth released" is very difficult for native English speakers to hear. I teach English in Poland, where the n's are "smooth released", and I have to teach my students to finish their n's with an alveolar release so that they will be understood. Conversely, when learning Polish, I had to suppress my own the alveolar release, and to distinguish between a "smooth released" n and a nasal vowel (for example "ton" vs. "tą". Yes, it is quite difficult to go from an alveolar release to an s without saying ts. As for the dictionaries, there are NO dictionaries that use 100% IPA 100% consistently. Shortcuts are frequently taken, especially when they make no difference in how a native speaker would pronounce the word. Dictionaries are a very imperfect guide to pronunciation, and IPA has its limits, especially if you're trying to apply it across languages. Listen to the video that HiLo linked to, especially the segment from :43 to :52, where "dance" is said several times by different individuals. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus: it is absolutely not true that "all speakers" pronounce a [t] there. Here's my pronunciation, with no [t] closure or burst to be seen: rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, here's another word which does have a [t], "patsy". The duration of the recording is comparable, but the "closure"-like part is much longer (it's hard to see because the recording is low-quality--I'm not in a quiet room--but the difference between the two recordings is obvious). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the comparison that would make more sense is "chance" and "chants". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally I'm not aiming to do a fully-controlled experiment here; I was just giving you some quick examples. My point is that, while it may be easy to perceive a [t] due to the articulatory issues you pointed out, it is not necessarily there in all speakers.

For what it's worth, in the comparison you are suggesting it would be very hard to get a [t] in either one for me, because the position it's in is just a horrible one for it (between other consonants, especially in a coda, is a typologically disfavored position for the realization of stops; see e.g. Steriade 1999). It would be easier to find a contrast in a place where the [ts] sequence is in syllable onset, like "chance of success" vs. "chants of singers". rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is variation in the release of "n" in native speakers of English. Is Dominus Vobisdu claiming that France is commonly pronounced like "Frants" and that chance and chants are homophones? I would regard these, and the Cambridge pronunciation, as examples of an "intrusive t" (similar to the common "intrusive r") — not particularly uncommon, but certainly not standard English. Dbfirs 11:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are exact homophones in general American,[[2]] and apparently for many in the UK as well.[[3]] And apparently for most of the Australians in the video HiLo liked to above, and certainly the male lead. The phenomenon is apparently called "epipenthic t". [[4]]. I admit it's not universal, but it certainly is standard, and very widespread if not the most widespread form. A lot of rhymes, jokes and puns depend on it, like the rhyme I cited above, and the following:

How do Arabs make love? Intense.

Some day, my prints will come... (slogan for a photography shop).

He has more dollars than sense.

And yes, it does appear to be related to how the n is articulated, as you point out. Listen to the video HiLo linked to, and see if you can detect an n in the word "dance" at :34. I can't. It sounds like she is saying "dass" to me. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well some people in the UK who use the "intrusive r" consider their pronunciation to be standard, but "most of us" regard it as an error. Thanks for the links. The jokes still work for "near-homophones" because we just imagine a child or a person with a hearing problem mis-hearing the word. It had never occurred to me that some people really think that they are true homophones! Perhaps my resistance to the "epenthetic plosive" comes from the fact that I live in northern England, where 90% of us reject this pronunciation (does this mean that we share a soft-release "n" with speakers of Polish?) Perhaps this all goes to show that pronunciations are extremely variable, and attempts to give "standard pronunciations" are doomed to failure? Dbfirs 13:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I'm reading, either that, or it has to do with the way you form the t sound. And the distribution doesn't seem to be a simple north-south difference. Used to work with a guy from Newcastle, and didn't notice it when he spoke. Definitely noticed it in the Poles we were both teaching, though. Of course all attempts to give a single definitive standard pronunciation are doomed to failure. There's always variation in any population, especially generational differences. Think of "standard" as an allowable range that does not jar the ear of educated native speakers. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dialectical difference. In some dialects, chance and chants are not homonyms. I though that was true for RP, but perhaps not anymore (just as RP no longer has linking ar). In most of GA they are homonyms. (Pons and ponds probably are as well.)

BTW, what is an "unreleased n"? The phrase means nothing to me. — kwami (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's when the initial vocalic component of the sound does not have an abrupt, clear end with separation of the tongue from the alveolar ridge, but kind of trails off into the sunset, almost unnoticed. Same goes for "l" and "m" in Polish. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the same phenomenon that 'hamster' is pronounced with a p, and strength with a k? It's standard, at least in my dialect (pretty much GA), that any time you have a nasal-voiceless fricative, there's a stop inserted homorganic with the nasal. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any word that lacks it. Lsfreak (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "vocalic component" of the [n]? I don't follow what that would be either. Can you transcribe with IPA a "released" and "unreleased" [n]? Are there examples online? — kwami (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's been around a long time, too. The word "empty" is spelled with a "p", which was not in the original Anglo-Saxon. Can occur after "l", too. For me, "else" rhymes with "belts" Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You all may be interested in this blog post, by John Wells: "Some day my prints will come". Lesgles (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I think that Californians say "kings" with a /g/ after the (unreleased) /n/, but I say it without a /g/. Same as in "answer", which I say without a /t/ after the (released) /n/, although I've heard many people say: "antser". My two cents. 84.229.3.141 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From some points of view, this can be considered to be a different relative timing of the transitions between different

However, if you have exactly the same feature transitions present, but the change in continuancy lags behind the change in voicing and nasality, then you get [nts]:

(Note that "interval 1" + "interval 2" in the first chart and "interval 1" + "interval 2" + "interval 3" in the second chart could occupy the same amount of time.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a test, I said "pronounce" to myself at various speeds, and there's definitely a soft "t" sound in there, as with "France". The "t" in "ants" 'n "pants" is a somewhat stronger "t" sound than in "France", "dance", "pounce", "ounce", etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]