Readers who need explanations of any of the abbreviations used may find them at Section 1 of the Home Page.
Archive 45 2013-03-26 to 2013-05-27 (#450 to #441)
Archive 44 2012-12-24 to 2013-03-20 (#440 to #431)
Archive 43 2012-09-22 to 2012-12-11 (#430 to #421)
Archive 42 2012-07-17 to 2012-09-17 (#420 to #411)
Archive 41 2012-05-14 to 2012-07-14 (#410 to #401)
Archive 40 2012-04-03 to 2012-05-09 (#400 to #391)
Archive 39 2012-01-06 to 2012-03-26 (#390 to #381)
Archive 38 2011-11-15 to 2012-01-03 (#380 to #371)
Archive 37 2011-08-29 to 2011-11-13 (#370 to #361)
Archive 36 2011-07-05 to 2011-08-28 (#360 to #351)
Archive 35 2011-05-12 to 2011-06-28 (#350 to #341)
Archive 34 2011-02-13 to 2011-04-20 (#340 to #331)
Archive 33 2010-12-24 to 2011-02-08 (#330 to #321)
Archive 32 2010-10-26 to 2010-12-19 (#320 to #311)
Archive 31 2010-09-23 to 2010-10-25 (#310 to #301)
Archive 30 2010-08-03 to 2010-09-22 (#300 to #291)
Archive 29 2010-06-27 to 2010-08-01 (#290 to #281)
Archive 28 2010-05-17 to 2010-06-25 (#280 to #271)
Archive 27 2010-04-16 to 2010-05-10 (#270 to #261)
Archive 26 2010-02-16 to 2010-04-13 (#260 to #251)
Archive 25 2009-12-25 to 2010-02-13 (#250 to #241)
Archive 24 2009-11-22 to 2009-12-23 (#240 to #231)
Archive 23 2009-10-06 to 2009-11-19 (#230 to #221)
Archive 22 2009-09-12 to 2009-10-05 (#220 to #211)
Archive 21 2009-08-04 to 2009-09-11 (#210 to #201)
Archive 20 2009-06-09 to 2009-07-26 (#200 to #191)
Archive 19 2009-05-07 to 2009-06-06 (#190 to #181)
Archive 18 2009-04-04 to 2009-05-05 (#180 to #171)
Archive 17 2009-02-23 to 2009-03-30 (#170 to #161)
Archive 16 2009-01-21 to 2009-02-07 (#160 to #151)
Archive 15 2008-12-03 to 2009-01-18 (#150 to #141)
Archive 14 2008-09-14 to 2008-12-01 (#140 to #131)
Archive 13 2008-08-08 to 2008-09-12 (#130 to #121)
Archive 12 2008-07-07 to 2008-08-02 (#120 to #111)
Archive 11 2008-06-10 to 2008-07-04 (#110 to #101)
Archive 10 2008-05-03 to 2008-06-07 (#100 to #091)
Archive 9 2008-03-30 to 2008-04-17 (#090 to #081)
Archive 8 2008-03-18 to 2008-03-28 (#080 to #071)
Archive 7 2008-01-20 to 2008-03-17 (#070 to #061)
Archive 6 2007-11-30 to 2008-01-14 (#060 to #051)
Archive 5 2007-07-22 to 2007-11-28 (#050 to #041)
Archive 4 2007-06-15 to 2007-07-20 (#040 to #031)
Archive 3 2007-02-23 to 2007-06-14 (#030 to #021)
Archive 2 2007-01-03 to 2007-02-21 (#020 to #011)
Archive 1 2006-11-01 to 2007-01-01 (#010 to #001)
English Phonetics in the 20th Century
Last year, saw the publication by Routledge of a set of six large,
weighty (about a kilogram each), solidly bound, handsome (and
correspondingly expensive, suggest your library gets’m) volumes
entitled ENGLISH PHONETICS: TWENTIETH CENTURY DEVELOPMENTS.
Its editors were Beverley Collins, Inger Mees and Paul Carley. This set
belonged to a series by Collins & Mees of which the previous item
was a seven-volume set PHONETICS OF ENGLISH IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
(2007) which also belonged to a uniformly styled valuable series begun
with their DANIEL JONES: SELECTED WORKS of 2003. The present new set of
these photographically reproduced copies of historic texts are labelled
I to VI thus “I: J. A. Afzelius’s pronouncing dictionary, II: Arthur
Lloyd James: Broadcasting and Spoken English, III: Arthur Lloyd James:
Broadcast English, IV: English phonetics, V: Landmarks in the study of
English intonation and VI: Phonetics of English as a foreign language.
Except for items by two Continental precursors, they all consist of
works with some degree of association with the Daniel Jones UCL school.
The first volume of this set is devoted entirely to republishing for
the first time in over a century the truly pioneering but long
forgotten lexicographical achievement, some years before anything of
the kind from Jones, of the 1909 Concise Pronouncing Dictionary of Modern English
by Jon Arvid Afzelius. He was a Swede who taught, and wrote textbooks
on, English at the then Gothenburg Business Institute. The
Collins-&-co prefatory notes observe that its 472 pages (smallish
originally but reprinted at double size with improved clarity) with “around 24,000 headwords” were “by any standard a remarkably high total for a so-called concise dictionary” and “all the more notable for being the work of just one man.”
I was unaware in the 1970s of even the existence of the Afzelius book
so it was something of a coincidence that, when I came to compile my Concise Pronouncing Dictionary
of 1972 for OUP my aim was that it shd be approximately half the size
of the Jones EPD of the day and so it came, by something of a
coincidence with the Afzelius, to contain about 24,000 entries (in my
case each with at least one GB and one GA transcription).
Afzelius used an adaptation of Henry Sweet’s phonemic-equivalent ‘Broad
Romic’ notation. He checked his impressions with the Oxford Dictionary,
which by then was about half completed, as well as with the works of
various other English phoneticians of the day. He curiously mentions no
de·t to the Dane Otto Jespersen whose extensive contributions to the Dictionary of the English and Dano-Norwegian Languages
by John Brynildsen (1902-07) constituted the most complete body of
English pronunciations in modern phonetic transcriptions before Jones’s
works and can hardly have not been known to Afzelius. He had in the
1880s belonged to the International Phonetic Association for some years
during which Jespersen had been a leading figure. When one considers
the immediate enthusiastic reception Jones’s EPD seemed to’ve received
on its publication, it’s rather surprising, as the editors remark, that
such a useful book wasnt immediately taken up by the EFL world beyond
Sweden. The only dedicated complete pronunciation dictionaries of
English available at the time had been the grossly out of date (little
changed since 1791) Walker’s Pronouncing Dictionary and the 1836 enlargement of it by Benjamin H. Smarte who called his revision Walker Remodelled. They continued in print into the early twentieth century.
The second volume in this set contains reprints of three sep·rate short books by Arthur Lloyd James. The very short (47 pages) Speech Signals in Telephony came
about as a training manual in the matter of “radio-telephonic speech”
for members of the Royal Air Force in 1940. Among the people he thanked
for their cooperation in his RAF work were Squadron-Leader D. B. Fry
who was later to succeed Daniel Jones as University College London
Department of Phonetics second Professor. Another was L-G’s son Flying
Officer D. Lloyd James who was much later, as a BBC staff member, to
invite me to broadcast on the BBC. While still at school aged about
fourteen I came across in a public library, as my first-ever ecounter
with English phonetics, a modest book of 176 pages Our Spoken Language
in which Lloyd James gave first an explanation of the speech mechanism
and then a concise and very readable description of (GB) English sounds
and prosodies. Re-reading it now, despite admiring the clarity of its
style, one’s bound to find its tone in places embarrassingly
patronising. Of course its assumptions were for the most part simply
those that had been typical of the middle classes since Victorian and
The third part of this volume reprints the 1935 book entitled THE BROADCAST WORD
in whose 207 pages were republished (with a joint Index etc) seven
“talks, lectures and essays”. Their titles were: I. The Broadcast Word
(pp 21-27). II. The B.B.C Advisory Committee on Spoken English (pp
29-73). III. Speech in the Modern World (pp 75-129). IV. Speech and
Language in the World today (pp 131-150). V. Standards in Speech (pp
153-172). VI. On Reading Aloud, with Special Reference to the Bible and
the Prayer-Book (pp 173-199). VII Some Thoughts about Minority
Languages with special reference to Welsh. (pp 193-219).
Among his most frequent topics was his deploring of so-called
“intrusive r”. This nineteenth-century term was unwisely adopted by
Daniel Jones: A. J. Ellis had called it more sensibly “euphonic”. See
the discussion in this website at Section 3 ¶8. Lloyd James struggled
to dissuade the BBC announcers under his supervision from using what is
now so universally accepted as to cause surprise that it cou·d ever
have been objected to. He acknowledged use of pronunciations like
“sonatar in A” (page 117) to be an ‘ingrained’ habit and (at page 107)
an “established feature of so-called Standard English” yet condemned
them as “unseemly”(page 118) and “deplorably common” (page 183). He
indulged his prejudices in other pronunciation matters as well. He
never acquired the toleration and discretion and thoro·ly scientific
outlook that characterised the mature writings of Daniel Jones, but he
was a notable phonetic figure whose work deserved to have its
availability restored. The editors provide excellent informative
comment on him in their gen·ral introduction to the volume (pp1-8).
An old fre·nd of this Blog in Japan, Emeritus Professor Tami Date,
recently enquired about a recording he heard from an audio CD that
accompanies an American EFL textbook. Tho it wou·d be nice to, I don’t
think you need to hear the items he’s talking about to follow the
discussion and appreciate the points being made.
He as·t questions about the following items.
I’ve lissend to the recordings of them and I’ve added the intonations I perceived.
1 Do ˈyou ˈwatch ￨ TˏV?
2 Do ˈyou ˈlike ⎟ watching TˏV ⎟ in your ˈfree ˏtime?
It sounds like, after 'do', the pitch goes up on 'you' with
prominence? So the auditory impression that I get is that 'you'
is contrasted with some other person.
When you say “it sounds like, after 'do', the pitch goes up on 'you' ”,
you’re right but the way that puts it is a bit ambiguous. So I’d’ve been
happier if you’d said at ‘you’ or to (instead of on)
‘you’ ”. ‘Do’ has lowish pitch but ‘you’ is accented by having been
given contrasting high pitch. There’s no movement upward during this
word ‘you’ which in itself stays at a single level pitch. The fact
that it’s higher, of course, me·nt that a rise in pitch had occurred.
That it is accented does tend to suggest a contrast of some sort tho
not at all necessarily strong or with reference to any specific person.
In some other situation a speaker could accent ‘you’ for a contrast with another person.
For example one might say:
ˈI’m ˈhaving a cup of `tea. Do ˈyou preˈfer ˎcoffee?
Most Japanese teachers like me would probably pronounce 'you' with a
relatively low pitch till we get to the main verb or the adverb.
My reply was:
That’s just simply a perfectly okay alternative.
He also sed:
…[P]lease explain why the pronoun is apparently accented.
A word is usually accented by a speaker merely to give it a bit more
attention or prominence ― and that’s no big deal. Sometimes people even
accent a word simply to make what they’re saying more lively in general
― what for many years I’ve been describing as using ‘animation stresses’.
A colleague James Kirchner commented that the prosody used wou·dnt
sound natural in ord·n·ry conversation. I agreed and mentioned that I
thaut the tempo is too slow in particular. Of course most learners wd be
fairly well aware that such a style is partly adopted to be extra clear in
order to help them to imitate it properly. In ord·n·ry conversation
most naturally the first two words wd usually be replaced by the single
contraction “D’you” which most often wou·dnt be accented as for
instance like this:
D’you ˈwatch ˈT´V?
or, a little faster, not bothering to accent the T of TV:
D’you ˈwatch T´V?
And if a strong contrast between two persons was intended, as James
suggested, the speaker wd be most likely to use a different intonation,
usually a falling tone eg
Do `you watch TˏV? or `D’you watch TˏV?
Here are the questions with intonations marked as they’re to be he·rd on the recording:
1 Do ˈyou ˈwatch ￨ TˏV?
2 Do ˈyou ˈlike ⎟ watching TˏV ⎟ in your ˈfree ˏtime?
3 ˈDo you ˈgo to ˏclubs?
4 Do ˈyou enˈjoy ˏclubs?
5 Do ˈyou ˈeat ˎdinner ⎟ in ´restau[´]rants?
6 Do ˈyou ˈeat ˏout some[´]times?
7 Do ˈyou ˈever ˈplay ˏsports ⎟ on ˏweekends?
8 Do ˈyou ˈplay a ˏsport ⎟ on ˏ[ˈ]weekends?
9 Do ˈyou ˈvisit ´relatives ˏoften?
10 Do you ˏoften ⏐ visit ´relatives?
For anyone who doesnt find that the simple intonation markings dont
make things fully clear I offer detailed explanations below.
In what follows I use “m” to stand for any syllable.
If the first word or words in a tone phrase aren’t marked they are to be taken as uttered on a lowish pitch.
ˈm = high (level) pitch.
Any subsequent ˈm in a tone phrase will indicate a step down to a
slightly lower pitch as happens to ‘watch’ in the
This vertical bar ⏐ signals (a change to) a new tone phrase within a
sentence (so the next unmarked word will have lowish pitch).
ˏm = lowish rise. ´m = highish rise.
[´m] I’ve enclosed in square brackets extra tone movements that wdnt be
classified as accents coz they merely smoothly renew a movement
begun at an earlier really accented word eg the word ‘out’ in #6 which
in itself doesnt move but does constitute the beginning of a rising
tone ― as we gather from hearing the next syllable a little higher.
In 5 the notation in ´restau´rants? means that the speaker had a
second higher rise on the last syllable that one wou·dnt classify as
employing a diff·rent new tone but as either as renewing the rise begun
earlier or constituting a complex single tone (a Rise-Climb in my
In 8 the notation ˏˈweekends conveys that the speaker didnt use a
new tone but levelled out at the top
of her rise thus using a single
complex tone (in my terminology a Rise-Alt)
My full system of tone marks is expounded at §8.3 and §8.5 on this website.
Festschrift for Professor Hyun Bok Lee
In December 2013 the remarkably successful English Phonetic Society of
‘A Festschrift for Emeritus
Professor Hyun Bok Lee of Seoul National University
It’s an impressive 520-page volume with lots of photos, especially of
course of the honoured recipient, even including of his meeting with ‘Her
Majesty’ Queen Elizabeth II on the occasion in 1999 of his recei·t of the award of the
(archaicly titled) high honour of Commander of the Order
of the British Empire. Professor Lee has had close connections with
Britain since he first came here in 1962 as a British Council Scholar
and in due course proceeded to obtain a doctorate from University
College London. I gather that Koreans regard 77th, 88th and 99th
birthdays as occasions for special celebration. They even have a
single word for the 77th ― ‘Heuisu’.
on the occasion of
his 77th Birthday’.
The first part of the book entitled ‘Congratulatory Addresses’ (running
up to page 80!) is full of cordial messages and praise from a great
variety of sources worldwide. Admiration for his teaching and
publications knows no bounds. Among especially int·resting
congratulations were at page 74 ‘to my
eminent colleague and erstwhile fellow student’ from Emeritus Professor
John Wells and also ‘greetings and congratulations’ from (our fellow bloggist) John
Maidment, another distinguished former faculty member of the University
College London institute now known as the Department of Speech,
Hearing and Phonetic Sciences. Another close associate of that
London Department, Professor Masaki Taniguchi of Kochi University Japan
was characteristic·ly gen·rous in his praise, saying very comprehensively
“You are one of the most wonderful
phoneticians and scholars and human beings in the world!”
The 440 pages of the latter section of the book are headed
These are nearly 40 items of which the first 8 and the 10th are in English
while the rest are mainly in Japanese tho they are all preceded by abstracts in English. I hope it will be helpful that I
refer to the items chiefly by a series number followed by a page number.
The very first 1/81 is the fruit of a collaboration of the dedicatee himself with the
Doublet. It’s titled 'Essential Esperanto' and concludes by saying that
“new boom for [Esperanto] is at hand”. The second 2/91 is by
the very distinguisht senior American scholar John J. Ohala, Emeritus
Professor of Linguistics at Berkley USA, entitled ‘Articulocentrism in
phonology’ and cogently expresses regret at the “regrettable
inertia within mainstream phonology to venture outside the articulatory
level in the conceptualizations of what is, at the core, the essential
nature of speech sounds.” The third 3/97 is by Professor John Esling of the Victoria University of Canada who holds the great honour of having been
elected current President of the International Phonetic Association.
Its title is ‘Reflections on
laryngeal constriction, pitch, and larynx height’and reports on “a new model of how the pharyngeal/epiglottal articulator
works, focusing on the compression of the epilaryngeal tube, massing of
vibrating elements through the tube, and the sphinctering of the
It wont be possible in the rest of this short blog to give full details
of authorship etc of all the remaining articles but readers will at
least be able to gather in brief what they contain. 8/137, by
present bloggist, involves the rare, praps first ever,
illustration of a printed article with four-colour diagrams of languages’ vowel-systems!
It’s an account of an H. B. Lee article on the Cardinal back
vowels. 4/103 reports on an attem·t to find ‘some acoustic
which could discriminate contextually nasalised vowel characteristics
from those of [a] normal sustained vowel’. 5/117 is on the
phonetics of the behaviour of certain Korean mono-syllabic morphemes.
6/121 is in the field of ‘Hidden Markov Model’ speech
synthesis. 7/129 is on ‘Ataxic Dysarthria in Japanese
Patients’. 9/145 is on what it calls the ‘Vowel Change from /əʊ/
to /ɒʊ/. 10/159 by Professor Masaki
Taniguchi of Kochi University and Professor Jane Setter of the UK University of Reading (that
last word is not a common noun but the name of a city). It looks at
“how the Haiku can be used to help” these learners “improve their
speech rhythm or more specifically their mora-timing … as a pedagogic
strategy”. 11/16 ‘explores the
possibilities’ of training Japanese prospective teachers of English
using Skype. 12/177 is devoted to
‘Allophonic differences of diphthongs in Scottish English’. 13/189 is on ‘Acquisition of Phonology in L2’ in
elementary schools. Its abstract contains the touching remark it was
hard to resist quoting “...in the
case of English schwa /ə/, the situation appears chaotic…”
14/201 is on ‘The Role of Length and Pitch in English
Sentence Stress’. 15/211 is on ‘Phonetic Variation and
Gestural Hiding’ (a term explained as exemplified by how ‘bestplayer’
becomes ‘besplayer’). 16/223 and 17/231 are both on the ‘Perception of
Nuclear Tones by the Non-handicapped’. 18/239 is
entitled ‘Perceptual Differences in the Tonic Syllable’. 19/253 is on
the suprasegmental features of motherese with the finding
that they ‘override language differences’. 20/267 describes
use of an SD (secure digital card) device applied to the teaching of
visually handicapped students. 21/277 is entitled ‘How Vowels
22/289 and 23/301,
both by an old fr·end of mine Tsutomu Watanabe, are about tag
questions in English with a variety of int·resting observations based
on several corpora.
24/313 is on the loss of /h/ from
the /hw/ sequence in British and American English. 25/323 is
on the English tag type of question. 26/337 has a
strange adjective in its title, ‘Templatic Phrasal Accentuation and
Stress Shift in English,’ derived rather unorthodoxly from the noun
‘template’. 27/351 is a study on an aspect of American Sign
Language. 28/363 investigates the ‘Optimum Speech Tempo of
English’. 29/373 is on how sound-symbolic words, as it puts
it, ‘act in different pitch types’. 30/385 is
headed ‘English Education Approach for Nursing Students’. 31/395 is on
‘Pronunciation and the use of English-Japanese
dictionaries’. Those in question are portable electronic ones offen
within telephones. Pie charts and other kinds of charts are supplied
lib·rally to display learners' responses to questionnaires. 32/409 also uses
questionnaires in this case on ‘English Learning for Hearing-Impaired Students’ in
Japan. 33/417 is about the FOOT and STRUT
Vowels of the Birmingham
Accent’. 34/431 is on ‘The perception of English intonation
of Japanese Learners’. 35/441 is on ‘Juncture Compensation
and Multiplicative Effects’. 36/455 is about ‘Acquiring the
rhythm of spoken English…’. 37/465 is on matters of fluency. 38/479 is
about ‘Word Memorization by the Auditory-Impaired.’ 38/487 is
about ‘The Perception of English Sentence Stress’.
Last but far from least is Article 39/501 about the
‘Qualification and Training…of Speech Therapists’. It's by Professor
Masaki Tsudzuki the President of the English Phonetic Society of Japan
to whom is owed a great de·t of thanks for his assembling and editing of this substantial volume.
Alan Cruttenden's Gimson 8th Edition
years ago our Blog 108 enthusiastic·ly welcomed the new sev·nth edition
of this unique book. Then we sed “Sensibly slimmed in its title to
"Gimson’s Pronunciation of English revised by Alan Cruttenden", it’s
really rather misleading to merely call it a revision”. Now also our description at that time “Better than ever re-casting, rewriting, amplification and
applies as much as before to this yet again substantially re-worked eighth
A change that'll catch the eye on many a
page is that the principal variety of English pronunciation described is no longer referred to
the outdated Victorian expression ‘Received Pronunciation.’ This is explained as having now so far evolved that it's developed such a distinct new character as to
call for a new title. The choice of this has been ‘General British’
(GB) which will be a familiar usage to our regular readers.
Other notable modernising moves include revised correlation with the
IPA Cardinal Vowel system by the change of symbol for the GB 'ash'
vowel from / ӕ / to / a /
and the decision that the 'square' phoneme, being
judged to be no longer mainstream GB in diphthongal form, is now given monophthongal representation as /ɛː/.
Some of the most remarkable new
developments are to be found other than in the pages of the book. In
the extended Companion Website we're given a variety
audio illustrations of the kinds of things that it's really always
needed, one might well say 'cried out for', since its first publication
century ago. These've only now become fully feasible in the twenty-first century with
the relatively recently arrived ubiquity
of Internet access. Besides a set of
reconstructions of how Old, Middle and Early Modern English will've
sounded, using passages from the Bible, Chaucer and Shakespeare, there
are 'real-life' illustrations of how English has changed during the
eighty years. These appear in the form of audio clips Cruttenden has
selected and provided with comments, transcripts (in
ordinary spelling) and transcriptions (in phonetic notation)
exemplifying various types of General British etc. The range of
speakers and topics includes royalty,
newscasters, sports personalities, literary and art critics, a
science presenter, a war reporter, a film star, a politician and a
television cook. The excerpts are of varied lengths from a few
sentences to sev·ral minutes.
The book princip·ly contains an ample description of the segmental and
prosodic features of General British English incorporating a rich
collection of comparisons of GB with the phonetic features
of other so-called 'standard' forms along with accounts of varieties
regions of Britain and of major areas overseas. These include 'Standard
Scottish English', General American, London Regional English,
so-called 'Estuary' English, the recent development Multicultural
London English, General Northern English, and the Englishes of
Zealand, South Africa and the Caribbean.
As in all later editions a very major proportion of the book has been
directed at the learning and teaching of the language to those who dont
have it as their mother tongue. Descriptions are included of types of
reduced English such as those Cruttenden has named ‘Amalgam English',
mingles features of GA or GB and native languages, and also of types at
a more extreme level of simplification he's called ‘International
Comparisons are even provided with the developments of the acquisition
of their speech sounds by English native-speaking infants.
There is a completely new fifty-item Selective Glossary. User
has also been extended with more of the comfortably digested 'text
introduced in the previous edition. They now have
no borderlines but are presented in lightly ‘shadowed’ blocks. I think
they'd look less sombre if they were lightly coloured. The
formerly blank inside covers of the book now carry conveniently
basic information. Footnotes have now been banisht to the ends of
tho this avoidance of a cluttered appearance will praps be a sacrifice
convenience that many may regret. Even the
book’s external appearance is improved. It
a tasteful simple coloured abstract design which is also put to
at the home page of the Companion Website, just one of the many welcome
introduced by its new publishers Routledge.
Surely destined to become increasingly popular for its convenient use
in computers and tablets is the 'eBook' version now available from the
publisher (previously I had to get one from an Australian company). Its advertised price of £29 is no more than that of
the paperback. As is seemingly inev·table these days, the hardback is
priced for all but libr·ies at £100. In
whatever form it may be used, this publication is more
obvi·sly the simply unrivalled single-volume-length
description of English phonetics (not just British English, either)
to be had. Finally, a very welcome piece of news to mention is
that the website
is completely free of access. Not even a password is required.
I shd like to thank all the readers who’ve so kindly enquired about my
while I’ve been taking the past six months break from blogging in order
to be free to devote myself to various other preoccupations. Some of
these will be
have been relevant to the topic of this present blog. One or two others
have had to do with other sections of this website. Another couple or so will
shortly be appearing in print in the Journal of the International Phonetic Association.
This is the title of #24 of the dialogs of my book People Speaking
for which with this present item I continue to, as was promised,
further phonemic-tonetic transcriptions, with comments, for the use
of advanced students of spoken English. In order to study them most
effectively, readers are agen recommended to go to the #24's sound file
at Section 4.1 of the main division of this website. If possible,
it's best to transfer the contents of the sound file into Audacity (the
freeware audio facility) to be able to
select convenient slices for repeated playback. Section 4.1 provides
descriptions of the tones to be found in the avowedly broad ie
1. /ˌsəʊ ju ӕv `-klɑsɪz| frm ˈnaɪn | tə `-wᴧn | ˈsɪks ˈdeɪz | ə ˎwik /
2. /ˎ jes | ɪkˈsep fə ðə wik | wen ðɛz ən ˈɔl deɪ trɪp | tə ˎstrӕtfəd /
3. / ˈwɒt də ðeɪ ˈdu | wɪ ðə `rest əv ðə deɪ /
4. / `ˈjuʒ(l*)i | ðɛ ˈfri tə du wɒt ðeɪ `laɪk /
5. / ðə(r*)ə `lɒts əv | vɒləntri ӕk`tɪvətiz leɪd ˏɒn /
6. / `ðeɪ kŋ ˈgəʊ fə `wɔks | ɪf ðə ˌweðəz ˏfaɪn /
7. / ɔ ˎʤᴧs sɪt ɪn | ð(ə*) ˏgraʊnz | ə (*ð)ə `hɒstl /
8. / ðə `siriəs ˏwᴧnz | raɪt `letəz ˎhəʊm /
9. / m̩ `prӕktɪs | fənetɪk trn̩`skrɪpʃn /
10. /ӕn(d*) ðə ˏfrɪvələs ́wᴧnz /
11. /ðeɪ ˈkɒŋgrɪgeɪt `-naɪtli | ət ðə ˈred `haʊs / ɑ ˈləʊkl `pᴧb/
12. / ˈwɒʧu ˈkɔl `(ð*)ɪs pleɪs/
13. /ˈhӕnəʊvə `lɒʤ /
14. [ɦə ɦə] /aɪm nɒt səˎpraɪz | ɪf ˈɔl ˈðӕt | ˎbuzɪŋ | gəʊz ɒn ˏðɛ /
On this occasion no indications of vowel length are offerd such as
appear redundantly in the common Gimson-style transcriptions of the
main pronouncing dictionaries etc. The symbol /ɛ/ represents the
phoneme more traditionally shown as /ɛə/ or /eə/ but which is now
increasingly recognised as not typically diphthongal in current GB but
most offen [ɛː]. The vertical bar ( | ) signals
a break in the rhythmic flow which may be very slight indeed. The
pitch, unless markt otherwise, drops after a bar to the lowish prehead
value of the first syllable of any new utterance not markt otherwise.
At line 1 the aitch-dropping at the word 'have'
is not unusual in informal conversation where, as here, the word is
minimally strest in very fluent utterance. The Fall-Mid tones `- at 'classes' and 'one' indicate a restricted descent from the top third but on·y to the middle third of the speaker's ord·nry voice range.
In line 2 the elision of the final /t/ of 'except' is completely ord·nry before the following consonant.
At line 3 the form /wɪ/ of 'with'
doesnt create the impression of its being a casual weakform becoz the
mere simplification of the sequence of the two occurrences /-ð ð-/ by
eliding the first of them sounds completely ord·nry. Before most other
consonants that were beginning a following word, /wɪ/ wd prob·bly sound quite
At line 4 the asterisked (l*) is used to indicate that a
'ghostly' (or even dou·tfully present) rather than really firmly articulated segment. In this case an /l/
appears to be used in 'usually'. The tone mark `ˈ at the word 'usually'
is me·nt to convey a narrow fall confined to the uppermost third of the
speaker's voice range. I call it a Fall-Alt. (More at my website main
At line 5, the asterisked letter, in this case (*r), at the first word 'there’re' is used with the same sort of meaning as in line 4.
At line 6 the assimilation of the weakform /kn/ of 'can' to /kŋ/ before the closely following /g/ in 'go' is completely ord·nry.
At line 7 the asterisks at the occurrences of the indefinite article 'the' and the word 'of' are also used as in line 4.
In line 8 the strest syllable of the word 'serious' is represented as having the vowel phoneme of words like 'street'.
This p·onunciation is increasingly commonly he·rd from Gen·ral British
speakers but the p·onouncing dictionaries are rather slow to catch up
with the fact, currently on·y giving /ɪə/ for it.
At line 9 the syllabic /m/ with which it begins is converted from the normal syllabic /n/ which is a very common weakform of 'and'
by a perfec·ly ord·nry assimilation to the bilabial consonant which
begins the following word. Note the extra vigour of the humorously
truculent 'explosive' (praps contemptuous) manner in which this word 'practise' is uttered. The syllabic /n/ in the prefix of 'transcription' is a variant pronunciation much less offen he·rd than /ӕ/ or /ɑ/ plus /n/ in this word.
At line 10 the use of the weakform /ӕn/ of 'and ',
if that's what we have, wou·dnt sound in the least casual. The two
rising tones neednt be taken as at all implying any
pitch or rhythmic discontinuity between the two words, just a smooth transition from low to high.
At line 11 the form /ɑ/ of our is
a weakform for most GB speakers but many have it as their only
pronunciation for the word. Anything stronger such as /ɑʊə/ wd be
inclined to sound unnaturally careful or formal.
At line 12, a much more usual stressing of this sentence wd be as ˈWhat d'you `call this place?'
Which isn· to suggest that there's anything unnatural about the way she
did say it, even in her use of /wɒʧu/ given the fluency and the informality of the
At line 13 she ovvisly thinks she's he·rd /ˈhӕŋəʊvə `lɒʤ /. Or jokingly pretends so.
At line 14 the lack of the past-tense marker /d/ at the end of 'surprised '
isnt surprising. The two initial voiced-aitch symbols etc are used just to
give some vague impression of the indistinct vocalising she produces.
The last vowel of Elizabeth
A reader in the south of Ireland has as·t about the p·ənunciation of the vow·l of the final syllable of 'Elizabeth'. He explained his uncert·nty saying "In
RP/conservative RP, does the final syllable of Elizabeth have the KIT
vowel or schwa? Being Irish, I have the Weak Vowel Merger and am
haltingly uncertain about which vowel is found in this word in those
accents without the merger. I tried to find the answer on the internet
but because it's a proper name it's very difficult to get information."
I sympathise deeply with that last comment. In the period from 1857 to
1882 when the members of the "Philological Society of London" were
deliberating on what shd go into their "New English Dictionary on Historical Principles"
which is now the great 'OED', they made one momentously important
decision which was praps understandable at the time but was most
unfortunate for posterity: they decided to omit all names of persons or
places which hadnt come to have generic or non-proprietary values. This
denied us the rich etymological and historical etc matter we might
otherwise have today — tho the OED wdve ended as an even heftier
collection than it now is.
The nearest thing to such provision we've had since is the excellent American 'Century Cyclopedia of Names'
first publisht in 1880 (in a single volume) and reissued in three
volumes in 1954. This did supply pronunciations and etymologies but not
the kind of extended historical data we get from the OED. It's since
not been revised or even reprinted but it did retail to me the usually
accepted if not totally convincing opinion that Elizabeth originated from a variant of the Biblical name 'Elisheba' (for which it gave the pronunciation /i`lɪʃəbə/). Cruden's Concordance to the 1611 Authorised Version of the Bible (1996) records 'Elisabeth' as occurring half a dozen times in the New Testament (and Elisheba once in Exodus).
The Tudor Queen Elizabeth was named after her grandmother Elizabeth of
York (1466–1503). In fact it's fairly clear that this Semitic word
entered our language via French in the e·rly Middle English period.
This provenance means that it wdve been pritty cert·n to've initially
been widely pronounced as [elisabet]. Anyway, that wd explain why
there've been various originally hypocoristic versions developed like Bet, Betty, Lisbet, Betsy and at one time curiously Tettie.
This last one was what Samuel Johnson's wife was called, so one
gathers. It's now been abandoned praps partly coz it uncumf·tably
Unlike various other words ending with the spelling eth, Elizabeth
(regardless of whether it's spelt with z or s) shows no earlier
versions with /-ɪθ/. Excepting the OED, no publications before the
twentieth century can be trusted for their representations of unstrest
terminations. This was so even as regards Melville Bell. Henry Sweet very highly respected
him but cou·dnt refrain from criticising him for his failure to resist
his "artificial elocutionary habits" in that respect (Handbook of Phonetics 1877 fn p.111). So we turn, for the only reliable earlier evidence available, to the 1917 first edition of the Daniel Jones English Pronouncing Dictionary for information on the development of words ending with -eth. He recorded on·y /-əθ/ for Elizabeth.
Apart from the eight ordinal numerals, twentieth to ninetieth, all of which have EPD1 /-ɪɪθ (±-jɪθ)/ only, our suffix -eth
for the most part ends little more than a few rare non-proper words.
The ones with some currency include one well-known personal name, Kenneth, with EPD1 /-ɪθ/ only, and one well-known place name Lambeth with /-əθ/ only. Slightly less common items were Elspeth with /e, ɪ/, Hesketh with /ɪ, e & ə/, Lisbet with /ɪ, e/, Lisbeth with /ɪ, e, ə/, Nazareth with /ɪ, ə/, and shibboleth
with on·y /e/. Besides these there exist in Britain three dozen or more
minor place names of which EPD1 c·ntained hardly more than Merioneth with /ɪ, e & ə/ and Toxteth with /e, ə/.
Merging tendencies proceed, we see, from the later twentieth
century onwards. We find increasing additional adoption of /ə/ or even
preference for it over /ɪ/. Examples of this are now accessible
in the latest editions of EPD (2011) and LPD (2008). In these, both Elizabeth and Lambeth are unchanged, and so is the first choice for shibboleth, yet nowadays both EPD and LPD add /ə & ɪ / for it. We find added /ə/ at all the ordinals (eg twentieth) and Kenneth. At Elspeth, Hesketh, Lisbet and Nazareth /ə/ is now at least preferred by both dictionaries. Merioneth shows very slight lack of agreement, EPD giving /ɪ, e ə/ but LPD /ə, ɪ, e/. So does Toxteth
with EPD having /e, ə/ and LPD /ə, ɪ, e/. I myself can never remember
hearing anything much diff·rent from these (except that I think /-iəθ/
is now more usual for the ordinals in GB these days) — and cert·n·y
never anything but
/-əθ/ in Elizabeth from any General British or other speakers of any age.
Dictionaries A very short introduction
Just publisht this past month, is this title by Lynda Mugglestone,
Professor of the History of English at Pembroke College, Oxford. She's
a lively, energetic character who no dou·t found it refreshing to write
a short book. Her 360-page Talking Proper: The Rise of Accent
was so densely packed with evidence for her (not exac·ly exciting)
observations that I struggled to finish reading it. This present book
is one of an OUP quite extensive series of 'very short introductions'
ranging from Anaesthaesia to Agnosticism and Advertising in the A's alone. Her contribution to the series is still 160 pages long. If you go here
you shou·d with any luck be to able see a lively YouTube
two-and-a-half-minute ovvisly impromptu monolog in which the lady
enthusiasticly describes her book, sitting cheerfully in a corner of a
bookshop — and hardly stopping to draw breath.
Any phonetician ʃd register at once that she's a near-enuff GB speaker
(with a few odd flickers of the North) and cert·nly can't be accused of having what most of the users of the
term mean by an "Oxford" accent. As to the particular features of her
articulatory performance, she's a good example of a not uncommon minor
group of extreme labiodentalisers. This type is never mentioned in
books that describe General British (GB is still called 'RP' chiefly by
the old guard) typical/orthodox articulations. For many who have it,
it's an inevitable consequence of their dentition, but for prob·bly
about as many others it's simply habitual. It can offen be difficult or
even impossible to decide in which of the two groups to place an
individual speaker. I think she fairly clearly belongs in the latter
one. We see strai·taway that she labiodentalises the tees of tend to, the dee of idiom, the ess of say, the ell of look, the arr of underestimate and the edh of at least one of the the's. Also there's the simply labiodentalised arr of re-think and the two arrs of "really, really"
the first of which is initially plano-bilabialised (ie
not-circulo-labialised, meaning not 'lip-rounded') as well as (presumably)
labiodentalised. However, these things — not surprisingly — have
little or no effect on intelligibility. This is so for a number of
other articulatory styles which are unorthodox in that they get no
mentions in the textbooks for speakers looking for information on
English articulations for purposes such as acquiring of an authentic
pronunciation of English as an additional language. And reasonably so,
because they simply arnt usually noticed at all by either native or
As to the phonological int·rest of what one might term her
good-tempered rant, for one thing she demonstrates forcefully another
corroboration of my offen-harpt-on assertion that people do accent the
GB schwa vowel when she twice sez emphaticly /`ðə dɪkʃnri/. Another
phrase of note is "as though there's only one dictionary"
which comes out as /əz `ðə ðəz əni ˎwᴧn dɪkʃn̩ri/. This has one
weakform I dont particu·ly remember noticing before (tho it doesnt
strike one as abnormal GB) namely /ðəʊ/ reduced to /ðə/. Also never
recorded as GB in the lit·rature is her /əni/ for only which I was much more aware of. So, for once at least, the practicly universal and extremely frequent ell-less weakform of only (as
I feel obliged to insist at ev·ry opportunity to counter the CEPD and ODP
negligence and LPD refusal to reco·nise it as 'RP') was thus replaced
by an even weaker form.
She has one or two striking turns of phrase etc as when she asks the
lissener to consider, of dictionaries, "Do they move from the
beginning, from clay tablets, to our modern tablets". And when she
mentions some dictionaries which used to have only hard words in them,
she gives an example that might make your hair stand on end. It's "acersecomic" meaning 'one whose hair was never cut'. For a scholar whose chair is in the history of the language I found her pronunciation of the word as /əˈkɜːsə`kɒmɪk/ (like 'a curse a comic')
a bit off. The word was evidently not borrowed directly from Greek
because it shows the Greek kappa, as normally happened with Greek words
borrowed into Latin, converted to 'c'. This, coming before 'e', was
regularly 'softened' to /s/ as we see in ceramic, ceratite, hydrocephalic, triceratops etc. So its original seventeenth-century borrowers cd be sure to've expected/me·nt it to be pronounced /əˈsɜːsɪ`kɒmɪk/.
This has not been a review of the book but merely some impressions that
it and its promotional concomitants have made on me. A further thing I
noticed came in reading its first chapter — which I found enjoyable and
was pleas·ntly provided for us to be able to sample the book in some detail. It
was at the discussions about what dictionaries shou·d include. The
question was as·t regarding pronunciations "Should the dictionary-maker use the International Phonetic Alphabet so that vaccine is, for instance, transcribed as / ́vӕksin/, vaccinate as / ́vӕksineit/."
(If any reader imagines that I might want to criticise the writer for
having no question mark at the end of that sentence, I shd say that
it's perfec·ly reas·nable to regard it as superfluous added to an
expression that's already grammatically explicitly interrogative so I
presence as a matter of the writer's taste.) The next paragraph
contained a parenthetic question "(is it ‘prevaricate or pre’varicate, for example?)".
These items showed weaknesses regarding either proofreading or of IPA
alphabet handling of sev·ral kinds. At the first pair a style of
stressmark was used twice that the IPA abandoned in 1925; for the
second pair two diff·rently curving single quotation-type marks were
used in a way that neither has ever been authorised by the IPA.
Additionally the two full transcriptions / ́vӕksin/ and / ́vӕksineit/ appear to be in mutually discordant styles neither of
which has ever been used for the OED unless the first is to be taken to
represent an American pronunciation. Finally, the remark "... the decision in British dictionaries for much of the 20th century to base information on an accent known as 'received pronunciation' served .. to exclude some 95% of the population" was to my mind disingenuous, tendentious and of questionable accuracy.
Welcome EP Tips.
Our thanks to John Maidment who's once agen putting all le·rners,
teachers and other EAL (English-as-an-Additional-Language) users in his
de·t by providing us with useful new sets of elegantly presented 'English Pronunciation Tips'.
Our blogs, as you may've noticed, are aim·d at advanced le·rners,
teachers and others who may be int·rested in English pronunciation and
its hist·ry. Here we offer to our readers a few footnotes to some of
John's enjoyable 'tips'
His first set offers helpful guidance on the letter sequence <al> pointing out that, if it's "followed
by the consonant letters <f>, <v> or <m>, it's
often the case that the <l> is silent and the vowel is pronounced
ɑː". He gives first the examples "calf, calves, calve, half, halve, halves" (involving labiodental consonants) and then "balm, almond, calm, palm, psalm"
(involving the bilabial nasal). Words of more than one syllable are not
so likely to have the 'silent' ells (that rather unfortunately remain
as reminders of their historical elision) because the labial consonant
following the ell may not have belonged in the same syllable. So we see
that the exotic plant (whose name begins with the Arabic definite
article) alfalfa /ӕl`fӕlfə/ and the forename Alfred /`ӕlfrᵻd/ do have theirs sounded.
Our use of the symbol "ᵻ" at the unstrest syllable of this last example
is not strictly-speaking authorised by the IPA but follows the
precedent set in 1944 in the Kenyon-&-Knott PDAE (Pronouncing Dictionary of American English)
which adopted it for a value that varied between [ɪ] and [ə] by a
procedure comparable to the formulation of the official IPA
symbol [ɨ] which indicates a central vowel related to [i]. ODP (the
2001 Upton-et-al Oxford Dictionary of Pronunciation)
also employed it, as we do here, to indicate conveniently the
possibility of either /ɪ/ or /ə/. It also happens that, where this type
of variation exists, it's found that cert·n numbers of speakers
habitually produce in such words a vowel quality intermediate between
the two values.
John also sez "If the letter
following the <al> sequence is <k>, again the <l> is
silent, but the vowel is pronounced ɔː. Examples:chalk stalk talk walk". Agen the only exception seems to be a polysyllable viz alkaline.
(Incident·ly, the immigrant fam·ly of the famous American scientist who
discovered the Salk /sɔːk/ polio vaccine wou·dve been unlikely to've
rhymed their name originally with talk.) The adjective balmy has no /l/. It means 'fragrant and/or soothing' and also has the informal sense 'stupid' in which it's also offen spelt barmy. Two other less common words, both of which gen·rally turn up in their plural forms, are the old-fashioned alms meaning gifts made to the poor (dwellings for such people used to be called 'almshouses') and qualms (misgivings). A very modern word is the name napalm / `neɪpɑːm/ for the ghastly bombs made from jellied petrol.
Another word in this 'silent-ell' group, but one which has /ӕ/ not /ɑː/ is, as John mentions, salmon. The similar name Salmond hasnt got the same origin but is a variant of the name Solomon. It got its /d/ in the way words like sound and astound
acquired theirs when people were confused for some centuries about
whether to use one or the other and finally plumped for the versions
that, as was no dou·t not realised, didnt have d's in their Latin
original forms. Various English dialects similarly have drownd instead of the standard form drown. The names Balmer, Chalmers and Balmforth have no /l/ but Balmoral, Dalmatian and Falmouth have.
I completely agree with John when he tells learners that almond has as its usual GB (Gen·ral British) pronunciation /`ɑːmənd/. John Wells's LPD (Longman Pronunciation Dictionary)
is the pronouncing dictionary I find most indispensable if on·y becoz
it usually lets you know if speakers in Britain have any other
'respectable' alternative pronunciations that are commonly used but
more or less markedly perceived as regionalisms. These are identified
by "§" in LPD. It happens that millions of Brits happen to say the word almond as /ӕlmənd/ or /ɑːlmənd/ as in fact most Americans do. The kind of calendar called an almanac
/`ɔːlmənӕk/ varies similarly on both sides of the Atlantic. My
advice to teachers is — unless they have plenty of time to spare to
have a little discussion about the matter that they feel their students
wd enjoy — if it's any of these alternatives that they hear their
students using, it's not worth wasting time 'correcting' them.
Some readers may remember my Blog 419 on the 'Baneful Boxes' a painful rash of which suddenly broke out in the latest edition of the CEPD (Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary). A typical one of these presumably sub-editors'
feeble attempts to jazz the CEPD up with miscellaneous superfluous
chatty notes in prominent 'boxes' was aimed at the word almond where they make the fatuous remark that "The pronunciation /ˈɑːlmənd/ is considered to be a case of spelling pronunciation."
So what? Very many thousands of other English words have also undergone
the same sort of development but the EPD has always up till the present
on·y been a record of how words are pronounced not of anecdotes about
the history of how they came to take their present forms or to embody
hints about the dou·tfulness of their status. One can on·y hope the
next edition of the CEPD has these tiresome intrusions removed.
More on Weakforms (xii).
get is capable in
a relaxt colloquial GB style of having its vowel replaced by a schwa as
Gimson noted in 1962 at page 243 of the first edition of his Introduction to the Pronunciation of English where he gave the example "Don't get lost /ˈdəʊnt gət ˈlɒst/."
This verb also happens to be one of a small number of GB monosyllabic
high-frequency words ending in a short vowel followed by /t/ whose
value for that /t/ when the word is strest before a following vocalic
phoneme is becoming in recent decades very noticeably offen weaken·d to
a voiced short tap [ɾ] or approximant [ɹ] articulation.
Bloggist John Maidment at the 24th of May 2012 sed that, tho we know it "in North American accents", he wondered how many of us know of
a ".. home-grown British phenomenon that turns t into ɹ?.. The pop
singer .. Cilla Black, who comes from Liverpool, is well-known .. for
the phrase “a lorra .. laughs”.
John Wells commented "I think I
was the first person to write about this phenomenon: Accents of English
p. 370, 374 (vol. 2), where I call it the t-to-r rule. It’s certainly
restricted to the environment of a preceding short vowel..."
I chimed in: "In respect of the dating of the earliest comments
on the phenomenon of the weakening of intervocalic /t/ to [ɹ], it was
well known to various nineteenth-century dialectologists. Joseph
Wright’s English Dialect Grammar of 1905 at §205 had this comment: “The change of final t to r in monosyllables with short stem-vowel occurs sporadically in most parts of Eng[land]
when the next word begins with a vowel, as \ger əm\ get them [etc]. It
occurs far more frequently in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the north
Midlands than elsewhere”.
I was surrounded by it growing up in
Cardiff and my impression is that I hear it occasionally but
increasingly from various GB and near-GB speakers among whom I’ve noted
Lord Lamont and other N(ear)GB Scots and the BBC’s old-Marlburian Chief
Economics Correspondent Hugh Pym."
going As we sed of doing,
this participle has a relaxt-style variant form with accented schwa
/ˈgəɪŋ/ probably to be regarded as 'U(pper-Class)GB' as ['gəɪŋ] and
certn·ly so as ['gë̞ɪŋ].
gonna This entry is supplement·ry to our Blog 348.
This, as a spelling, appears in the OED first in its Supplement of 1933 with the description "colloq. (esp. U.S.) or vulgar pronunciation of going to" and supplies quotes from 1913 onwards in apparently only US writers. The only pronunciation OED gave, /ˈɡɒnə/,
was misleading — for Brits at least. A satisfactory British account of
its pronunciation had to wait till the first edition of the Wells LPD
where the entry for the spelling first gave "(ˈ)gənə"
with the bracketed stressmark indicating possible accentuation of the
following syllable (despite Wells's insistence that
GB schwa is unaccentable) and next sed "There is no real RP strong form for this informal contraction of going to" followed by the very pertinent remark that "spelling pronunciations ˈgɒnə, ˈgᴧnə are sometimes used in reading".
These came about because the British writers had adopted from
American usage a spelling which reflected faithfully a cert·n US
strongform pronunciation but not a GB one. Anyway, weakform pronunciations on both sides of the
Atlantic have probably chiefly been /gənu/ before vocalic sounds (ie
not consonantal ones whether of phonemes or [ʔ]). Lexicographers in
gen·ral have been slow to take up such items. It wasnt in Webster 1961
and it's still not in the online Webster but in 1966 Random House had
it as [`gɔnə].
A less frequent less compressed variant /`gəʊnə/ occurs,
to some extent, at least among GB speakers. This was to be noted
the 6th of Feb·ry 2013 from p.m. David Cameron. This last form
can't replace the full form of 'going to' in the sense 'make one's way
to'. GB speakers use /gənə ~ gənu/ only in the
future-tense-forming sense not in the sense 'make one's way to'.
good The problem with describing GB occurrences of this word is that a
generation or two ago the form /gəd/ cou·dve been safely classified as, in mainstream GB,
a weakform mostly confined to casually uttered items like /ˈgəd
ˏmɔːnɪŋ/ Good morning. Nowadays /gəd/ seems t've largely replaced /gʊd/
among the non-elderly as the mainstream form — and not in this word
goodbye As a farewell this is recorded by both CEPD and LPD as having a
weakform produced by elision of its /d/ viz /ˈgʊˈbaɪ/ tho neither
mentions the schwa version(s) /ˈgə(b)ˈbaɪ/.
got is a member of that small group of monosyllables, mentioned at
'get' above, when eg I've got to go becomes /aɪ(v) gɒd~r ə `gəʊ/. Those
who use either of these (/d/ or /r/) variants in such cases dont ever
make them firmly or anything but shortly and lightly articulated. Observed used by eg politician Christopher Patten.
have The three major (British) pronunciation dictionaries all fail to
record any use of the aitchless weakform /ӕv/ of main-verb, not auxiliary, have which is perfectly
common in both GB and GA mainly in informal styles, especially where it's
preceded by the weakform /t/ of to eg within phrases like I shd
like to have a look at it /aɪ ʃd ˈlaɪk t ӕv ə `lʊk ət ɪt/.
In relatively formal styles this /ӕv/ seems to be more common in
American use than in British. Recent public-address examples to be heard have been "a
reminder as to why we have /ӕf/ to remain vigilant" from Hilary Clinton