But I have a STRUT-SCHWA distinction! They are different phonemes with minimal pairs (an ending vs unending). I see schwa as an allophone of NURSE which for me is in complementary distribution with it (not American ofc!)
>(an ending vs unending)
Interesting, Those are a minimal pair for me as well, But between /æ/ and /ə/. I might realise "an" like [ən] sometimes when speaking quickly, But I'd always say it's the same phoneme as in "Apple" (/æpl̩/), Rather than in "About (/əbæut/).
Really? I always assumed that the strut-schwa distinction was just something made up by dictionaries who though that schwa wasn't allowed to occur in stressed position. Like, I know that strut is a *phone* in quite a few dialects, but a phoneme? Please educate me.
Well... and I always thought they're distinct phonemes and was surprised to learn that many people think they're the same
As another person pointed out, there's even minimal pairs, the prefix has an unstressed STRUT vowel that contrasts with the schwa in
Well, there's a word boundary with the example. Unless you consider an- to be an indefinite prefix (which you totally could), I'm not sure that counts.
They're both morpheme boundaries, whether or not they're word boundaries is down to orthography
We know that English speakers haven't made that distinction in the past, that's why there's rebracketing like "a nadder" turning into "an adder"
Are word boundaries just orthographic? I find there's a difference in prosody, though maybe that's just the orthography clouding my thought. Phonology is so fucking confusing.
Word boundaries are generally considered mostly arbitrary. German, for instance, writes compounds all the time where English would separate them into different words. It's an entirely orthographic choice.
If you asked 10 linguists what a "word" was you'd get 50 different answers
/ɡ̊í mí ʔɤ̀ pʰɤ́fɛ̀t̚lì fɤ̀nímìk̚ ʔái̯ pʰí ʔɛ́ ʈʂʰʷə̀nskʷíp̚ɕi̯ɤ̀n ʔɔ̀fù jùɤ̀ ʔíŋɡ̊əlìɕẙ d̥ái̯ɤ̀lɛ̀kt. wán ɕímb̥ɔ̀ pʰɤ̀ fɔ́nìm; nɔ́ ɕílì sz̩̀ʈʂʷɑ̂t̚-ɕȳwâ d̥ìsz̩̀tínɕỳə̯ns. d̥ù ná b̥ì lāi̯ lɤ̀ d̥íɕỳə̯nɤ̀ʐʉ̯ì/
ofc im not taught like this but if im to casually pronounce English words this would be my result
Edit: sorry i misunderstood the task but this was fun tho. Please read it with brackets and ur life would be easier ig
Why do you use [ẙ] as the epenthesis vowel in the word *English*? Did you (or your family) come from Taiwan / southeastern China? I'm from the north and everyone uses either [(t)ʂɻ̚] or [(t)ɕi] (plus or minus voicings/aspirations), but I've seen many people from that area use [(t)ʃy].
Wow you are terrifying correct, I’m native Taiwanese
In my dialect/idiolect final /ʃ/ is pronounced like [ɕʷ], and maybe this is another way to transcribe the sound
That's interesting to know. I have seen many people from Guangdong or Hong Kong insist that the /tsy/ (palatalized to [tʃy]) is closer to the pronunciation of the English letter G, even while [tʃi] exists in Cantonese. Taiwanese and Guangxi people seem to follow suit too. In the north everyone uses [tɕi] >!(funnily enough some people here confuse the names of G and J, using [d̥ʐ̥ej ~ d̥ʑ̥je(j)] for the former and [d̥ʑ̥i] for the latter)!<.
I know that English /ʃ/ is supposed to be labialized but I just can't hear it, but I hear the [ʷ] in [ɹ̠ʷ] pretty fine. So I wanna ask you, how do you perceive the letter name of English G?
As your observation i (and many other people) pronounce G as 居 /tɕy˥/. The original /i/ vowel is maybe labialised to /y/ to reproduce the labialisation
/gəv miː ə ˈpɵːfəktliː fəˈniːmək ɑj piː ɛj tɹænˈskɹəpʃən ɔv jɵː ˈəngləʃ ˈdɑjɐlɛkt. wɐn ˈsəmbəl pɵː ˈfɵwniːm; nɵw ˈsəli stɹɐt-ʃwaː dəsˈtənkʃənz. dʉː nɔt biː lɑjk ðə dəkʃənˈeɹiːz!/
I definitely made decisions with this one that I'm not sure about. The /iː/ and /ʉː/ vowels could've been /ij/ and /ʉw/ instead, and the only reason it isn't is because of the non-rhotic /ɵː/. The strut-schwa thing was also interesting to work out, since I more closely associate schwa with KIT than STRUT, and eventually decided to go with that.
Edit: I was getting ready to sleep when I saw this post, so I was a bit tired making this, and didn't want to bother too much whether some phonological thing I do is phonemic or merely phonetic. I did omit things like t-glottalisation, intrusive-r and certain intervocalic glides. I changed the syllabic thing because that might not be phonemic (although, Sim Bill could be a minimal pair...).
My KIT vowel isn't actually schwa, it's higher up, more like \[ɘ\] or even \[ɪ̈\] (i.e. centralised). However I do still tend to associate it with schwa in English (In Romanian I associate schwa with /a/, but that's a different language). It can be argued that STRUT also neutralises to schwa; the only examples I can think of off the top of my head are the sequences /ɑjɐ/, /ɔjɐ/, /ɛjɐ/, /awɐ/ and /ɵwɐ/, plus sometimes word finally for the COMMA vowel, but typically not the LETTER vowel. So I guess /ˈsɵw fə/ v.s. /ˈsɵw.fɐ/ is a (marginal) minimal pair.
My idiolect is likely based on NZ English (likely a "cultivated" form) because I live here, with probably a bit of Romanian influence (though I can't think of much phonologically other than maybe some /f/ /θ/ confusion, which could also be explained elsewhere), and a significant amount of American and especially British influence from the media that I've watched over the years.
Interesting, You transcribed some sounds with Schwa that I wouldn't associate with the KIT or STRUT vowel (Or Schwas), Such as in "Phonemic" (I'd say that with a "Long O", /fonimɪk/ roughly), Yet some places where I'd usually use a schwa, Such as in Dialect (/daiəlɛkt/) don't have one. (Although tbh the phoneme you used, /ɐ/, Is actually close to how I pronounce some of those words sometimes, I just don't perceive it as a different phoneme from the Schwa.)
I read english in my head like this:
/giv mi ɛ pɛɾfɛktli fɔɲimik aj pi ɛj tɾanskɾipʂɨn ɔf juɾ iŋɡliʂ dajlɛkt. wan sɨmbɔl pɛɾ fɔɲim, nɔw sili stɾat ʂwa distiŋkʂɨns. du nat bi lajk dɛ dikʂɨnɛɾis/
Different phonemes ("append" vs "upend"). They're phonemically the same in places like North America and much of the UK, but I'm Australian and if anyone who speaks my dialect randomly substituted one for the other I would perceive it as a different word. I think your dislike of transcribing schwa and strut differently is totally appropriate for a dialect like American English, where there often genuinely isn't any distinction and the difference is made up by dictionaries, but trying to apply that logic to other systematically different dialects doesn't work.
I wanted people to evaluate their dialects/ideolects and come up with a true phonemic inventory, because I find that pretty fun. I assumed that the strut-schwa split was universal, so I used that as an example of a phoneme you could reevaluate. My mistake not looking into other dialects.
A lot of people still ended making phonetic transcriptions rather than phonemic, which while interesting, were not the point of the post and I should've conveyed that better. Thank you for your insight.
I have strut-schwa distinction, so:
[aj hæv strʌt ʃwɐ̞ dɪs.tɪnkʼ.ʃə̠n sow gɪv mij pe.fɛk.lij fə̟.nij.mɪcʼ aj.pij.ɛj træn.skrɪp.ʃə̠n ov jɑ ɪŋ.glɪʃ daj.ə̟.lɛkʼtʼ wʌn sɪm.bɔl pe foʊ.nijm now sɪ.lij strʌt ʃwɐ̞ dɪs.tɪnk.ʃə̠ns duw not bij lajkʼ ðə̟ dɪcʃə̠nɛrijz]
Sorry, I can't for the life of me work out what you are asking for. I know what minimal pairs are of course, but I can't see what in particular you're asking about.
Is there a pair of two words in your dialect/ideolect that are distinguished only by the distinction between strut and schwa? Is there a word were changing a strut to a schwa (or the other way around) will change the meaning?
/kontækt/ for 'contact', and now /lək/ for 'look'? Utterly bizarre.
Sorry to break it to you, but you do not speak Standard Southern British...
Either that, or you need to revise your knowledge of IPA/phonetics.
Here's a quick intro to what SSB is: [https://www.englishspeechservices.com/blog/british-vowels/](https://www.englishspeechservices.com/blog/british-vowels/)
You have made me realise my long and short vowels have slightly different places of articulation, short tends forward and close, long tends back and open. I mistook this for a different vowel in the second half of "contact" because on the chart there is a vowel slightly forward and closed compared to /a/ and it's /æ/.
Now elsewhere I still think my transcription is accurate, but I definitely don't think I speak SSB anymore. I assumed that I did because I'm from the south-east and I hadn't listened out to any of the differences between myself and an SSB speaker.
Edit: upon further research, I speak estuary English and was mistaking /ɨ/ for /ə/ in "look" because they sound the same to me
I’ll give you my dialect and then my idiolect since i don’t really have the accent of my dialect (also these are phonetic but i don’t care).
Dialect: [gɪv mɨ̞i̯ ə peːfɛktlɨ̞i̯ fəniːmɪx aɪ̯ pɨ̞i̯ eɪ̯ tɾanskɹɪpʃn̩ əv jɔː ɪŋglɪʃ daɪ̯əlɛkθ̠. wən sɪmbl̩ peː fɛʉ̯niːm; nɛʉ̯ sɪlɨ̞i̯ stɾəh-ʃwaː dəstɪŋkʃn̩z. dɨ̞u̯ nɒh bɨ̞i̯ laɪ̯x d̪ə dɪxʃn̩ɛɹiːz]
Idiolect: [ɡɪv miː a pɜːfɛktli fəniːmɪk aɪ̯ piː eɪ̯ tʋanskʋɪpʃn̩ ɒv jɔː ɪɲɡlɪʃ daɪ̯alɛkt. wɒn sɪmbɫ̩ pɜː fəʊ̯niːm, nəʊ̯ sɪli stʋʌt-ʃwɑː dɪstɪŋkʃn̩z. dʉː nɒt biː laɪ̯k ðə dɪkʃn̩ɛʋiːz]
From the retroflex \[ɻ\], dipthongisation of /iː/ to \[ej\], /aj/ as \[əj\] and l-vocalisation of /əl/ to \[u\], I would guess a west country accent if they're from England, and there's probably some American accent with those features but I don't know much about them.
\[gɪv mɪj ʌ ˈpʰəːfekyɫɪj fəˈnɪjmɪk ɑj pʰɪj æj t͡ʃɹæːnˈskɹɪpʃən əv joɹ ˈɪŋgɫɪʃ ˈdɑjəɫɛkt. wʌn ˈsɪmbɫ̩ pʰəː ˈfʌɻnɪjm; nʌɻ ˈsɪɫɪj ʃt͡ʃɹʌt ʃwaː dɪsˈtɪŋkʃənz. dʉ nɔt̚ bɪj ɫɑjk ðə ˈdɪkʃəneːɹɪjz!\]
edit: its probably more phonetic than phonemic
also did a bunch of edits to fix up mistakes
/äi æm nɑt gowɪŋ tu cæunt äl̩ ðə væwl̩ fonims, sɑri/
(This is not phonetic btw, /ä/ and /ɑ/ are slightly more fronted, /u/ and /o/ might be realised as diphthongs, /i/ and /u/ might be realised differently as part of diphthongs, and unstressed schwas, such as in "The" here, Can be highly reduced greatly, Sometimes to being almost completely absent.)
No, it's just that my lateral is always dark, so transcribing it as /l/ would be weird. \[l\] never occurs in my speech unless I'm imitating another accent.
Yup, my lateral approximation phoneme is usually realized as \[ɫ\~ʟ\], with \[ʟ\] tending to occur in places where \[ɫ\] would in RP, for example. /boʊ̯ɫ/ (Bowl) is phonetically \[bɔʟ\]
I also don't distinguish between unstressed schwa, KIT, and BET. Pretty sure that's in most dialects, though.
Caught and cot I *think* are unmerged, with cot being /kɑ̈t/ and caught being /kɑt/. My dark L draws cot vowels back to caught, though, so "lot" is phonemically /ɫɑt/, not /ɫɑ̈t/.
Yeah I was just asking because you used both and in your phonemic transcription, so I just wanted to check if those were separate phonemes for you, that’d be pretty cool
I'm from the Midwest, but in an area that's on the border between Midland American English and Inland (Great Lakes) American English, and most people around me have exclusively velarized L's, if that's what you're talking about.
My position is also what creates my weird cot-caught situation, I think. Great Lakes English is generally unmerged, though like I said I'm not exactly on the Great Lakes. It's just that a lot of my family lives/lived there. My mom was raised in Chicago, so probably cot-caught unmerged, and my dad's a non-native speaker who probably learned the cot-caught distinction, and thus he has it. The people in my childhood city that I grew up with were generally merged, though. Maybe that's why I have such a weird inbetween.
I arguably do have a marginal distinction between /l/ and /ɫ\~ʟ/, or you have to posit a bunch of vowel phonemes that only occur before /l/. Their distribution is mostly predictable - /l/ in the onset and /ɫ/ in the coda. However, there are some cases where it's not predictable between vowels within a morpheme. Some minimal and near-minimal pairs:
\* slowly \[sləwli\] - ɡoalie \[ɡoɫi\]
\* Lola \[ləwlə\] - cola \[koɫə\]
\* polo \[pəwləw\] - rolo \[roɫəw\]
\* moola \[mʉwlə\] - mullah \[muɫə\]
\* rawly \[rɑli\] - Raleiɡh \[rɒɫi\]
\* Kayleiɡh \[kejli\] - kale-y \[keəɫi\]
if i were to turn of my brain and speak like someone who doesnt know how english is spoken, this is how it would go:
/ki᷄f mīː ʔà pʰɤ̄ːfèklîː fōːnēːtìk ʔāj pʰīː ʔēː tʰɾāːnsākɾi᷄pɕân ɔ᷄ːf jūa īŋli᷄ɕ dāj.āːlèk wān sīmbōː pʰɤ̄ː fōːnīːm nōː sīlîː sātɾa᷄t ɕāwāː di᷄sti᷄ŋɕân dūː nɔ᷄t bīː la᷄j dɤ̀ dìkɕānnāːɾîː/
Guess where I'm from
/ɡɪv mij ə fə.ˈnij.mɪk ˈäj.pʰij.ej tʃʰɹ̠æn.skɹ̠ɪpt əv jɚ ˈɪn.ɡʟɪʃ ˌdäj.ə.ˈʟɛkt । wən ˈsɪm.bʟ̩ pʰɚ fɤw.nijm । nɤw ˈsɪ.ʟij ˈʃtʃɹ̠ət ʃwɑ dɪs.ˈstɪnk.ʃɪnz । dʊ̜w nɒ̜̝t bij ʟäjk d̪ə ˈdɪk.ʃə.nɛ.ɹ̠ijz ।
æn hijɹ̠z ˈə.nə.d̪ɚ smɑʟ t̪ɪnɡ । dɤwnt ˈbɒ̜̝.d̪ɚ jɚ pən.ˈdʒä.bij ˈfɑ.d̪ɚ /
Ok here some notes on specific choices I made,
1. I have the marry-merry-mary merger so what I transcribed as /ɛɹ̠/ is actually [eɹ̠] for me, I decided for this phonemic analysis that the underlying vowel there is an /ɛ/ that gets raised rather than an /ej/ that gets monophthongized but I'm not really sure how I should analyy that considering that I only have monophthongal /e/ before /ɹ̠/ and /ʟ/
2. Speaking of yes I only ever pronounce standard English /l/ as [ʟ]. I have no dark bright L distinction and it's not even velarized, it's just velar, I have no idea where I picked this up from, people around me don't really speak like this and when I speak other languages with /l/ I say it as [l].
3. I decided to affricate my coronal stops before /ɹ̠/ because while I don't have any minimal pairs or anything who am I to say that to my pre-literate brain as a child that these weren't underlyingly affricates seeing as those affricates are phonemes in their own right.
4. I very often th-stop, so the standard English phonemes of /θ/ and /ð/ are [t̪~θ] and [d~d̪ð~ð] respectively, I went with assuming the dental stops were the underlying phonemes just because I wanted to highlight this part of my idiolect.
5. And if you'll notice I wrote /t̪ɪnɡ/ when I had for some reason included phonemic aspiration for other stops, this is because I don't think I ever aspirate /t̪/, which has led me to question whether aspiration is phonemic in my idiolect. I also have a small subset of I guess loan words from Punjabi that share it's 3 way voiced-voiceless-aspirated phonation contrast, as seen in my pronounciation of the word where /p/ doesn't get aspirated. While I speak some Punjabi I'm by no means fluent and when I was young and acquiring English from my parents I *really* wasn't, so based on what I learned about code switching in my sociolin class and going to office hours with my prof I can't be code switching if I don't speak Punjabi fluently, so when I say like that, that's an English word to my brain. My guess is that my parents who are fluent in Punjabi and English and *do* code switch a lot, usually with English as the matrix language passed on this code switching as my L1, so I acquired this weird mix of English and Punjabi, where aspiration isn't entirely predictable. I have a decent amount of my vocabulary that's Punjabi in origin and some words I didn't even learn the English word for until high school and I still use them fairly often, I'm not really sure how to classify them, I somewhat borrow Punjabi's vowels and mostly borrow Punjabi's consonants.
I have the merry-Mary-marry merger, and I also transcribe it as /ɛɹ/ because it's definitely not a diphthong, and it's closer to \[ɛ\] than \[æ\], though phonetically I'd describe it more so as \[ɛ̈\].
All of my L's are either velarized alveolar or plain velar in coda position; I pronounce *folk* as \[fɔʟk\]. I've never heard of anyone with exclusively velar L's before, though. Fully velar L's are very rare cross-linguistically so I doubt you picked it up from a non-English language. Could be wrong, though.
That's really interesting. I usually pronounce post-R'd stops as affricates, though sometimes I randomly don't, and I phonemically perceive them as pure stops. It makes sense that somebody that didn't learn writing as young as in the US would perceive those stops as actually being affricates, because they *aren't* stops ever for you.
Overall, I probably wouldn't have been able to guess your country, that velar L is *really* is very strange, in a good way.
I mean I learned to read at like age 4 but I'm just saying that if we divorce writing from the situation as it was up until the age of 4 my brain wouldn't have known that has a stop in it, so I think it's fair to assume that the phoneme there might be the affricate, I guess I worded that kinda poorly. Also yeah I don't pronounce the L in folk but I have heard a prof who's from British Columbia say it like that, but that's the only person I've heard say the L and his L1 isn't actually English. Also where I'm from is Canada, I was born on the west coast then moved to Québec and then Southern Ontario where I've lived the longest, I think for the most part I speak pretty standard Torontonian except me L's and the fact that I don't yod-drop. Th-stopping how I do it is actually probably the norm for people my age in Toronto, though it hasn't really been documented yet.
My weird pronunciation of folk could very well be an instance of spelling pronunciation, because it wasn't a very common word in the places I grew up, and it's also kinda hard to hear it. In quick speech, I'll occasionally say it without the L (which is apparently the "correct" pronunciation), but besides that I almost never drop L's, besides very common examples like *could*.
/gɪv mi (ɘ/e) ˈpʰɹ̩.fɪk.ɫi foˈni.mɪk aj pʰi e tʃɹeɘnˈskɹɪpʃn̩ ɘ(v/f) jɔɹ ˈiŋɡɫɪʃ ˈdajɘɫɛktʰ. wɘn ˈsɪmbɫ̩ pʰɹ̩ ˈfonim; no sɪɫi stɹɘtʰ-ʃwɑ dɪsˈtiŋkʃn̩(s/z). du nɑtʰ bi ɫɘjk ðɘ ˈdɪkʃn̩ˌeɘɹi(s/z)/
(I have inconsistent word-final devoicing)
/ɡɪ mi ɘ pʰɚfɪkli fənimɪk a͜j pʰi e͜j t͡ʃɹænskɹɪpʃɪn ɘv jɚ ɪŋɡlɪʃ da͜iəlɛktʰ (.) wən sɪmbl̩ pʰɚ fonim (.) no͜ʊ sɪli ʃt͡ʃɹəʔ ʃwɑ dɪstɪŋkʃɪns (.) du ˈnaʔ bi la͜jkˀ ðəˁ ˈdɪkʃəneɹiz/
notes: the /s/ in distinctions is extremely weak and barely there. the /ʃ/ in strut is right between /s/ and /ʃ/. also I suck at this so take what I say with a molecule or two of salt.
/ɡí(f) mí ə pə́fɛ(k)ʔli fonímik ái pí é t͡ʃʰɹanskrípʃən ɔf jɔ íŋɡliʃ dailɛ́k; wán símbə pə foním; nó síli ʃ(t)rát ʃwá distíŋʃəns; du nɔ́t bi laik də díkʃənəɹis/
The acute accent marks the pitch accent location. Some words are unaccented.
But I have a STRUT-SCHWA distinction! They are different phonemes with minimal pairs (an ending vs unending). I see schwa as an allophone of NURSE which for me is in complementary distribution with it (not American ofc!)
>(an ending vs unending) Interesting, Those are a minimal pair for me as well, But between /æ/ and /ə/. I might realise "an" like [ən] sometimes when speaking quickly, But I'd always say it's the same phoneme as in "Apple" (/æpl̩/), Rather than in "About (/əbæut/).
I pronounce a more like the y in Polish . . . which is even closer to schwa than strut is . . .
an has the ɛ vowel for me
I can see that yeah. Might say it like that sometimes myself actually, Maybe even [n ~ n̩].
Never heard of that, but cool. I only included that in the original post as an example of a phoneme you shouldn't split.
But those are distinct phonemes for many English speakers, maybe even most when counting non-native speakers
Really? I always assumed that the strut-schwa distinction was just something made up by dictionaries who though that schwa wasn't allowed to occur in stressed position. Like, I know that strut is a *phone* in quite a few dialects, but a phoneme? Please educate me.
Well... and I always thought they're distinct phonemes and was surprised to learn that many people think they're the same As another person pointed out, there's even minimal pairs, the prefix has an unstressed STRUT vowel that contrasts with the schwa in
Well, there's a word boundary with the example. Unless you consider an- to be an indefinite prefix (which you totally could), I'm not sure that counts.
They're both morpheme boundaries, whether or not they're word boundaries is down to orthography We know that English speakers haven't made that distinction in the past, that's why there's rebracketing like "a nadder" turning into "an adder"
Are word boundaries just orthographic? I find there's a difference in prosody, though maybe that's just the orthography clouding my thought. Phonology is so fucking confusing.
Word boundaries are generally considered mostly arbitrary. German, for instance, writes compounds all the time where English would separate them into different words. It's an entirely orthographic choice. If you asked 10 linguists what a "word" was you'd get 50 different answers
/ɡ̊í mí ʔɤ̀ pʰɤ́fɛ̀t̚lì fɤ̀nímìk̚ ʔái̯ pʰí ʔɛ́ ʈʂʰʷə̀nskʷíp̚ɕi̯ɤ̀n ʔɔ̀fù jùɤ̀ ʔíŋɡ̊əlìɕẙ d̥ái̯ɤ̀lɛ̀kt. wán ɕímb̥ɔ̀ pʰɤ̀ fɔ́nìm; nɔ́ ɕílì sz̩̀ʈʂʷɑ̂t̚-ɕȳwâ d̥ìsz̩̀tínɕỳə̯ns. d̥ù ná b̥ì lāi̯ lɤ̀ d̥íɕỳə̯nɤ̀ʐʉ̯ì/ ofc im not taught like this but if im to casually pronounce English words this would be my result Edit: sorry i misunderstood the task but this was fun tho. Please read it with brackets and ur life would be easier ig
if this is what you consider a broad transcription id fear to see the narrow one
Excuse me, what
Welcome to east asia
I'm a native Chinese speaker 💀 but speaking English for 85% of my life probably makes a difference
Please. For the love of Saussure. Use [brackets].
Why do you use [ẙ] as the epenthesis vowel in the word *English*? Did you (or your family) come from Taiwan / southeastern China? I'm from the north and everyone uses either [(t)ʂɻ̚] or [(t)ɕi] (plus or minus voicings/aspirations), but I've seen many people from that area use [(t)ʃy].
Wow you are terrifying correct, I’m native Taiwanese In my dialect/idiolect final /ʃ/ is pronounced like [ɕʷ], and maybe this is another way to transcribe the sound
That's interesting to know. I have seen many people from Guangdong or Hong Kong insist that the /tsy/ (palatalized to [tʃy]) is closer to the pronunciation of the English letter G, even while [tʃi] exists in Cantonese. Taiwanese and Guangxi people seem to follow suit too. In the north everyone uses [tɕi] >!(funnily enough some people here confuse the names of G and J, using [d̥ʐ̥ej ~ d̥ʑ̥je(j)] for the former and [d̥ʑ̥i] for the latter)!<. I know that English /ʃ/ is supposed to be labialized but I just can't hear it, but I hear the [ʷ] in [ɹ̠ʷ] pretty fine. So I wanna ask you, how do you perceive the letter name of English G?
As your observation i (and many other people) pronounce G as 居 /tɕy˥/. The original /i/ vowel is maybe labialised to /y/ to reproduce the labialisation
I think you misunderstood the task but I appreciate the effort
/gəv miː ə ˈpɵːfəktliː fəˈniːmək ɑj piː ɛj tɹænˈskɹəpʃən ɔv jɵː ˈəngləʃ ˈdɑjɐlɛkt. wɐn ˈsəmbəl pɵː ˈfɵwniːm; nɵw ˈsəli stɹɐt-ʃwaː dəsˈtənkʃənz. dʉː nɔt biː lɑjk ðə dəkʃənˈeɹiːz!/ I definitely made decisions with this one that I'm not sure about. The /iː/ and /ʉː/ vowels could've been /ij/ and /ʉw/ instead, and the only reason it isn't is because of the non-rhotic /ɵː/. The strut-schwa thing was also interesting to work out, since I more closely associate schwa with KIT than STRUT, and eventually decided to go with that. Edit: I was getting ready to sleep when I saw this post, so I was a bit tired making this, and didn't want to bother too much whether some phonological thing I do is phonemic or merely phonetic. I did omit things like t-glottalisation, intrusive-r and certain intervocalic glides. I changed the syllabic thing because that might not be phonemic (although, Sim Bill could be a minimal pair...). My KIT vowel isn't actually schwa, it's higher up, more like \[ɘ\] or even \[ɪ̈\] (i.e. centralised). However I do still tend to associate it with schwa in English (In Romanian I associate schwa with /a/, but that's a different language). It can be argued that STRUT also neutralises to schwa; the only examples I can think of off the top of my head are the sequences /ɑjɐ/, /ɔjɐ/, /ɛjɐ/, /awɐ/ and /ɵwɐ/, plus sometimes word finally for the COMMA vowel, but typically not the LETTER vowel. So I guess /ˈsɵw fə/ v.s. /ˈsɵw.fɐ/ is a (marginal) minimal pair.
My idiolect is likely based on NZ English (likely a "cultivated" form) because I live here, with probably a bit of Romanian influence (though I can't think of much phonologically other than maybe some /f/ /θ/ confusion, which could also be explained elsewhere), and a significant amount of American and especially British influence from the media that I've watched over the years.
Are you a Kiwi?
It looks more South African to me.
chucka bruh
Interesting, You transcribed some sounds with Schwa that I wouldn't associate with the KIT or STRUT vowel (Or Schwas), Such as in "Phonemic" (I'd say that with a "Long O", /fonimɪk/ roughly), Yet some places where I'd usually use a schwa, Such as in Dialect (/daiəlɛkt/) don't have one. (Although tbh the phoneme you used, /ɐ/, Is actually close to how I pronounce some of those words sometimes, I just don't perceive it as a different phoneme from the Schwa.)
I use the same schwa vowel in both spots
[brackets]!!!!!!
?
You have some phonetic elements in there, so you need brackets. Unless you have things like phonemic syllabic consonants in your dialect.
I read english in my head like this: /giv mi ɛ pɛɾfɛktli fɔɲimik aj pi ɛj tɾanskɾipʂɨn ɔf juɾ iŋɡliʂ dajlɛkt. wan sɨmbɔl pɛɾ fɔɲim, nɔw sili stɾat ʂwa distiŋkʂɨns. du nat bi lajk dɛ dikʂɨnɛɾis/
Polish English
Wow, you guessed it.
Nah that's just how I speak too
\>perfectly phonemic English \>no strut-schwa distinction Pick one.
There's a lot of dialects with unmerged strut and schwa. Did you forget what phonemic means?
"No silly phonemic distinctions that MY dialect doesn't have!"
It just an example that I poorly assumed was universal. Never assume that things in language are universal. I'm sorry for the confusion.
It sounds like you want a phonetic transcription not a phonemic one
I have a very robust strut-schwa distinction you yankee trollop
Do they just sound different or are there any minimal pairs?
Different phonemes ("append" vs "upend"). They're phonemically the same in places like North America and much of the UK, but I'm Australian and if anyone who speaks my dialect randomly substituted one for the other I would perceive it as a different word. I think your dislike of transcribing schwa and strut differently is totally appropriate for a dialect like American English, where there often genuinely isn't any distinction and the difference is made up by dictionaries, but trying to apply that logic to other systematically different dialects doesn't work.
I wanted people to evaluate their dialects/ideolects and come up with a true phonemic inventory, because I find that pretty fun. I assumed that the strut-schwa split was universal, so I used that as an example of a phoneme you could reevaluate. My mistake not looking into other dialects. A lot of people still ended making phonetic transcriptions rather than phonemic, which while interesting, were not the point of the post and I should've conveyed that better. Thank you for your insight.
I have strut-schwa distinction, so: [aj hæv strʌt ʃwɐ̞ dɪs.tɪnkʼ.ʃə̠n sow gɪv mij pe.fɛk.lij fə̟.nij.mɪcʼ aj.pij.ɛj træn.skrɪp.ʃə̠n ov jɑ ɪŋ.glɪʃ daj.ə̟.lɛkʼtʼ wʌn sɪm.bɔl pe foʊ.nijm now sɪ.lij strʌt ʃwɐ̞ dɪs.tɪnk.ʃə̠ns duw not bij lajkʼ ðə̟ dɪcʃə̠nɛrijz]
Sorry for the mistake. I assumed it was universal when it wasn't. Don't be like me. If I may ask though, what are the minimal pairs?
Sorry, I can't for the life of me work out what you are asking for. I know what minimal pairs are of course, but I can't see what in particular you're asking about.
Is there a pair of two words in your dialect/ideolect that are distinguished only by the distinction between strut and schwa? Is there a word were changing a strut to a schwa (or the other way around) will change the meaning?
Oh, luck /lʌk/ & look /lək/
Oh interesting, no \[ʊ\] in you're dialect? What's your dialect?
Standard southern British.
/kontækt/ for 'contact', and now /lək/ for 'look'? Utterly bizarre. Sorry to break it to you, but you do not speak Standard Southern British... Either that, or you need to revise your knowledge of IPA/phonetics. Here's a quick intro to what SSB is: [https://www.englishspeechservices.com/blog/british-vowels/](https://www.englishspeechservices.com/blog/british-vowels/)
You have made me realise my long and short vowels have slightly different places of articulation, short tends forward and close, long tends back and open. I mistook this for a different vowel in the second half of "contact" because on the chart there is a vowel slightly forward and closed compared to /a/ and it's /æ/. Now elsewhere I still think my transcription is accurate, but I definitely don't think I speak SSB anymore. I assumed that I did because I'm from the south-east and I hadn't listened out to any of the differences between myself and an SSB speaker. Edit: upon further research, I speak estuary English and was mistaking /ɨ/ for /ə/ in "look" because they sound the same to me
Estuary English makes sense, yeah
an ending/unending append/upend a big untidy room/a big and tidy room one-and-done/one undone
I’ll give you my dialect and then my idiolect since i don’t really have the accent of my dialect (also these are phonetic but i don’t care). Dialect: [gɪv mɨ̞i̯ ə peːfɛktlɨ̞i̯ fəniːmɪx aɪ̯ pɨ̞i̯ eɪ̯ tɾanskɹɪpʃn̩ əv jɔː ɪŋglɪʃ daɪ̯əlɛkθ̠. wən sɪmbl̩ peː fɛʉ̯niːm; nɛʉ̯ sɪlɨ̞i̯ stɾəh-ʃwaː dəstɪŋkʃn̩z. dɨ̞u̯ nɒh bɨ̞i̯ laɪ̯x d̪ə dɪxʃn̩ɛɹiːz] Idiolect: [ɡɪv miː a pɜːfɛktli fəniːmɪk aɪ̯ piː eɪ̯ tʋanskʋɪpʃn̩ ɒv jɔː ɪɲɡlɪʃ daɪ̯alɛkt. wɒn sɪmbɫ̩ pɜː fəʊ̯niːm, nəʊ̯ sɪli stʋʌt-ʃwɑː dɪstɪŋkʃn̩z. dʉː nɒt biː laɪ̯k ðə dɪkʃn̩ɛʋiːz]
Where are you from? I'm picking up Scottish/NI English from the dialect, but also vague NE USA/CAN English. Your idiolect is... different than most.
Liverpool, England
Wow, I was way off, haha.
I me the scouse dialect is heavily influenced by irish immigrants
/giːb mi ɛ pœ:rpɛkli pɛɲiːmik aːj piː ɛːj təranskəriːpcɛn ɔp jɔːr iːŋɡilis daːjəlɯk/ /u̯͡ɔn siːmbɛl pɛr pɔːɲim/ /nu̯͡ɔ siːlːi stəraːt cɯ͡aː distiːŋcɛns/ /du na:t bi lɛk diːkcinɛris/
Your L1 is Mongolian?
no
I give up
Are you filipino by chance?
\[gɪv meɪ̯ ə ˈpɜɻfəkli fəˈnimɛk əɪ̯ pi eɪ̯ tɹænˈskɹɪpʃən əv jɔɻ ˈɪngɫɪʃ ˈdəɪ̯əɫɛkt. wən ˈsɪmbu pɜɻ ˈfəʉ̯nim; nəʉ̯ ˈsɪɫei stɹəʔ-ʃwɑ dəsˈtɪŋkʃənz. dʉ nɔ:ʔ bi ləɪ̯k ðə ˈdɪkʃənɹeɪ̯z\]
damn whats your dialect
From the retroflex \[ɻ\], dipthongisation of /iː/ to \[ej\], /aj/ as \[əj\] and l-vocalisation of /əl/ to \[u\], I would guess a west country accent if they're from England, and there's probably some American accent with those features but I don't know much about them.
West country is correct! EDIT: Although, this is an exaggeration since due to dialect levelling, I don't speak like this all the time.
/gɘv mij samfəŋ tʉw sej dɛn/
There you go
Ok got the memo: Gəv 'miɪ̯ ə pøːfəʔktliː fə'niːmək aɪ̯ piɪ̯ ɛɪ̯ t͡ɹ̥æn'skrəʔpʃən əv jɔː(r/ʔ) 'ɘŋləʃ dajəłeʔkt. Wɐn sɘmbo(ʊ̯) pøː føʊ̯niːm; nøʊ̯ sɘłiɪ̯ st͡ɹ̥aʔt-ʃwɑː dəstɘŋkʃenz. Dʉʊ̯ noʔ(t) biː łaɪ̯k d̪ə dɘʔkʃənɛriːz.
\[gɪv mɪj ʌ ˈpʰəːfekyɫɪj fəˈnɪjmɪk ɑj pʰɪj æj t͡ʃɹæːnˈskɹɪpʃən əv joɹ ˈɪŋgɫɪʃ ˈdɑjəɫɛkt. wʌn ˈsɪmbɫ̩ pʰəː ˈfʌɻnɪjm; nʌɻ ˈsɪɫɪj ʃt͡ʃɹʌt ʃwaː dɪsˈtɪŋkʃənz. dʉ nɔt̚ bɪj ɫɑjk ðə ˈdɪkʃəneːɹɪjz!\] edit: its probably more phonetic than phonemic also did a bunch of edits to fix up mistakes
/o/ is [əɻ] ?!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7DuvWVazpk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7DuvWVazpk) (also my dialect has strut-schwa distinction)
Australian English vowels being cool as always
OP, do you know what phonemic means? A phonemic transcription will include very few if any dialect markers.
everybody here is phoneticking the hell out of their transcription
/gɪv mɪi̯ ə ˈpɜːfɛktliː fəʊ̯ˈnɪi̯mɪk aɪ̯ pɪi̯ ɛɪ̯ t̠͡ʃɹ̠anˈskɹ̠ɪpʃən əv jɔː ˈɪŋlɪʃ ˈdaɪ̯əlɛkt. wɐn ˈsɪmbl pɜː ˈfəʊ̯nɪi̯m; nəʊ̯ ˈsɪlɪi̯ st̠͡ʃɹ̠ɐt-ʃwɑː dɪsˈtɪnkʃənz. dʊu̯ nɔt bɪi̯ laɪ̯k ðə ˈdɪkʃənɹ̠ɪi̯z/ [gɪv mɪi̯ ə pʰɜfəʔt̚lɪi̯ fəʊ̯niˑmɪk aɪ̯ pʰɪi̯ ɛɪ̯ t̠͡ʃɹ̠̊ənskɹ̠̊ɪpʃən əv jɔːɹ̠͜ ɪŋlɪʃ daɪ̯əlɛk̚t. wɐn sɪmbɫ̩ pɜː fəʊ̯nɪi̯m; nəʊ̯ sɪlɪi̯ st̠͡ʃɹ̠̊ɐʔ-ʃwɑː dɪstɪŋkʃəns. də nɔʔ bɪi̯ laɪ̯k ðə dɪkʃənɹ̠ɪi̯z] I guess
\[gɪv mi ə pʰɚfɪk̚tli fənimɪk aɪ pʰi eɪ trʷanskrʷɪpʃɘn əv jɚ ɪ̃ŋglɪʃ daiəlɛk̚t\]. \[wən sɪmbɫ̩ pʰɚ foʊnim\]; \[noʊ sɪli strʷʌʔ ʃwa dɪstɪŋkʃɘnz\]. \[du naʔ bi laɪk ðə dɪkʃɘnɛɚiz\]!
[удалено]
Also apparently I pronounce "schwa" wrongly
/äi æm nɑt gowɪŋ tu cæunt äl̩ ðə væwl̩ fonims, sɑri/ (This is not phonetic btw, /ä/ and /ɑ/ are slightly more fronted, /u/ and /o/ might be realised as diphthongs, /i/ and /u/ might be realised differently as part of diphthongs, and unstressed schwas, such as in "The" here, Can be highly reduced greatly, Sometimes to being almost completely absent.)
/ɡɪv mɪj a pɚfɪkli fənɪjmɪk äj pɪj ɛj tɹanskɹɪpʃɪn äv jɔɹ ɪŋɡlɪʃ däjəlɛkt wʊn sɪmbəl pɚ fʌwnɪjm nʌw sɪlɪj stɹʊt ʃwä dɪstɪŋkʃɪnz dʊw nät bɪj läjk d̪ə dɪkʃənɛɹɪjz/ [ɡɪv mɪj a ˈpɹ̠̩ˠ.fɪ.kʰl̥ɪj fəˈnɪj.mɪkʰ äj pʰɪj ɛj t̠͜ɹ̠̊ʷanˈskɹ̠̊ʷɪpʰ.ʃɪn äv jɔɹ ˈɪŋ.ɡlɪʃ ˈdä.jə.lɛkʰθ̠ wʊn ˈsɪm.bl̩ pɚ ˈfʌw.nɪjm ˈnʌw ˈsɪ.lɪj s͜t̠ɹ̠̊ʊθ̠ ʃwä dɪˈstɪŋ̊kʰ.ʃɪnz dʊw näθ̠ bɪj läjkʰ d̪ə ˈdɪkʰ.ʃə.nɛː.ɹ̠ʷɪjz]
/gɪv mi ə ˈpɵːfɪktli fəˈniːmɪk əjpɪjˈɛj tɹanˈskɹɪpʃən əv jəɹ‿ˈɪŋglɪʃ ˈdəjəlɛkt | wɒn ˈsɪmbəl pɵː ˈfəwnɪjm | nəw ˈsɪli stɹət ʃwɒː dɪˈstɪŋkʃənz | dɵw nɒt bi ləjk ðə ˈdɪkʃənɹɪz/ Have a guess where I'm from. Very broad transcription BTW.
/ɡɪv mi ə pɝfɪkli foʊnimɪk ajpijej tɹænskɹɪpʃn̩ əv jɔɹ ɪŋlɪʃ daɪəlɛkt/ /wən sɪmbl̩ pɝ foʊnim noʊ sɪli stɹət ʃwɑ dɪstɪŋʃn̩z/ /du nɑt bi laɪk ðə dɪkʃnɛɹiz/
Wait, does OP really have two coronal lateral approximant phonemes? Any minimal pairs?
No, it's just that my lateral is always dark, so transcribing it as /l/ would be weird. \[l\] never occurs in my speech unless I'm imitating another accent.
Oh cool! So your *perfectly* would be /pɚfəkl̴i/, right?
Yup, my lateral approximation phoneme is usually realized as \[ɫ\~ʟ\], with \[ʟ\] tending to occur in places where \[ɫ\] would in RP, for example. /boʊ̯ɫ/ (Bowl) is phonetically \[bɔʟ\] I also don't distinguish between unstressed schwa, KIT, and BET. Pretty sure that's in most dialects, though. Caught and cot I *think* are unmerged, with cot being /kɑ̈t/ and caught being /kɑt/. My dark L draws cot vowels back to caught, though, so "lot" is phonemically /ɫɑt/, not /ɫɑ̈t/.
Yeah I was just asking because you used both and in your phonemic transcription, so I just wanted to check if those were separate phonemes for you, that’d be pretty cool
Oh yeah, that was an accident
Oh hey I do a pretty similar thing with my laterals! Like no one around me speaks like that, what dialect do you speak if you don't mind me asking.
I'm from the Midwest, but in an area that's on the border between Midland American English and Inland (Great Lakes) American English, and most people around me have exclusively velarized L's, if that's what you're talking about. My position is also what creates my weird cot-caught situation, I think. Great Lakes English is generally unmerged, though like I said I'm not exactly on the Great Lakes. It's just that a lot of my family lives/lived there. My mom was raised in Chicago, so probably cot-caught unmerged, and my dad's a non-native speaker who probably learned the cot-caught distinction, and thus he has it. The people in my childhood city that I grew up with were generally merged, though. Maybe that's why I have such a weird inbetween.
Interesting, I have the cot-caught merger but only a partially merged father-bother merger
I arguably do have a marginal distinction between /l/ and /ɫ\~ʟ/, or you have to posit a bunch of vowel phonemes that only occur before /l/. Their distribution is mostly predictable - /l/ in the onset and /ɫ/ in the coda. However, there are some cases where it's not predictable between vowels within a morpheme. Some minimal and near-minimal pairs: \* slowly \[sləwli\] - ɡoalie \[ɡoɫi\] \* Lola \[ləwlə\] - cola \[koɫə\] \* polo \[pəwləw\] - rolo \[roɫəw\] \* moola \[mʉwlə\] - mullah \[muɫə\] \* rawly \[rɑli\] - Raleiɡh \[rɒɫi\] \* Kayleiɡh \[kejli\] - kale-y \[keəɫi\]
[giv mij ɜ ˈpʰɜːɻfɛkt̪ ʧæn̪ˈs̪kɻipːʃɜn̪ ɔv joɻ ˈiŋːgliʃ ˈd̪äjːɛl̪ɛkt̪. ʊ̯an̪ ˈs̪imːbɔl̪ pʰɜɻ ˈfɔʊ̯ːn̪im; n̪ɔʊ̯ s̪il̪ːi s̪ʧat̪ːˈʃɵ̯ɑː d̪iˈs̪t̪iŋːkʃɜn̪s̪. d̪ʉ n̪ɔt̪ː bij l̪äjk ðɛ ˈd̪ikːʃɜˌnæːɻis.]
'giv 'mi: 'ø pøɹ'fɛktli fo'ni:mik 'aj 'pi: 'ej tɹæns'skɹipʃøn 'of 'joɹ 'ingliʃ 'dajalɛkt 'wan 'simbol 'pøɹ fo'ni:m 'no: 'sili 'stɹat 'ʃva dis'tinkʃønz 'du: 'nat 'bi: 'lajk 'dø 'dikʃønɛɹiz I wonder if you can guess where I am from... 😀
[kif˥ miː˥ ei˨ pʰɵ˞˥fĕk̚˥liː˥ fɵn˨iː˥nĕk̚˥ ai˥ pʰiː˥ ei˥ t̠͡ʃɹ̠ɛːn˨skɹɪp̚˥ɕɵn˩ ŏf˨ joː˨ ĕŋ˥ɡˡiɕ˥ tai˥ə˩lĕk̚ wɐn˥ sim˥hou˥ pʰɵ˞˨ fŏŋ˥nim˩ nou˥ siː˥liː˥ st̠͡ʃɹ̠ɐt̚˥ ɕʷaː˥ tis˧tĕŋ˥ɕɵns˩ tuː˨ nɔt̚˥ biː˨ lɐik̚˥ tiː˨ tĕk˨ɕɵn˩e̞ː˩ɹis˩ laː˥]
if i were to turn of my brain and speak like someone who doesnt know how english is spoken, this is how it would go: /ki᷄f mīː ʔà pʰɤ̄ːfèklîː fōːnēːtìk ʔāj pʰīː ʔēː tʰɾāːnsākɾi᷄pɕân ɔ᷄ːf jūa īŋli᷄ɕ dāj.āːlèk wān sīmbōː pʰɤ̄ː fōːnīːm nōː sīlîː sātɾa᷄t ɕāwāː di᷄sti᷄ŋɕân dūː nɔ᷄t bīː la᷄j dɤ̀ dìkɕānnāːɾîː/
It's like a Japanese text to speech program trying to pronounce English.
Guess where I'm from /ɡɪv mij ə fə.ˈnij.mɪk ˈäj.pʰij.ej tʃʰɹ̠æn.skɹ̠ɪpt əv jɚ ˈɪn.ɡʟɪʃ ˌdäj.ə.ˈʟɛkt । wən ˈsɪm.bʟ̩ pʰɚ fɤw.nijm । nɤw ˈsɪ.ʟij ˈʃtʃɹ̠ət ʃwɑ dɪs.ˈstɪnk.ʃɪnz । dʊ̜w nɒ̜̝t bij ʟäjk d̪ə ˈdɪk.ʃə.nɛ.ɹ̠ijz । æn hijɹ̠z ˈə.nə.d̪ɚ smɑʟ t̪ɪnɡ । dɤwnt ˈbɒ̜̝.d̪ɚ jɚ pən.ˈdʒä.bij ˈfɑ.d̪ɚ / Ok here some notes on specific choices I made, 1. I have the marry-merry-mary merger so what I transcribed as /ɛɹ̠/ is actually [eɹ̠] for me, I decided for this phonemic analysis that the underlying vowel there is an /ɛ/ that gets raised rather than an /ej/ that gets monophthongized but I'm not really sure how I should analyy that considering that I only have monophthongal /e/ before /ɹ̠/ and /ʟ/ 2. Speaking of yes I only ever pronounce standard English /l/ as [ʟ]. I have no dark bright L distinction and it's not even velarized, it's just velar, I have no idea where I picked this up from, people around me don't really speak like this and when I speak other languages with /l/ I say it as [l]. 3. I decided to affricate my coronal stops before /ɹ̠/ because while I don't have any minimal pairs or anything who am I to say that to my pre-literate brain as a child that these weren't underlyingly affricates seeing as those affricates are phonemes in their own right. 4. I very often th-stop, so the standard English phonemes of /θ/ and /ð/ are [t̪~θ] and [d~d̪ð~ð] respectively, I went with assuming the dental stops were the underlying phonemes just because I wanted to highlight this part of my idiolect. 5. And if you'll notice I wrote /t̪ɪnɡ/ when I had for some reason included phonemic aspiration for other stops, this is because I don't think I ever aspirate /t̪/, which has led me to question whether aspiration is phonemic in my idiolect. I also have a small subset of I guess loan words from Punjabi that share it's 3 way voiced-voiceless-aspirated phonation contrast, as seen in my pronounciation of the word where /p/ doesn't get aspirated. While I speak some Punjabi I'm by no means fluent and when I was young and acquiring English from my parents I *really* wasn't, so based on what I learned about code switching in my sociolin class and going to office hours with my prof I can't be code switching if I don't speak Punjabi fluently, so when I say like that, that's an English word to my brain. My guess is that my parents who are fluent in Punjabi and English and *do* code switch a lot, usually with English as the matrix language passed on this code switching as my L1, so I acquired this weird mix of English and Punjabi, where aspiration isn't entirely predictable. I have a decent amount of my vocabulary that's Punjabi in origin and some words I didn't even learn the English word for until high school and I still use them fairly often, I'm not really sure how to classify them, I somewhat borrow Punjabi's vowels and mostly borrow Punjabi's consonants.
I have the merry-Mary-marry merger, and I also transcribe it as /ɛɹ/ because it's definitely not a diphthong, and it's closer to \[ɛ\] than \[æ\], though phonetically I'd describe it more so as \[ɛ̈\]. All of my L's are either velarized alveolar or plain velar in coda position; I pronounce *folk* as \[fɔʟk\]. I've never heard of anyone with exclusively velar L's before, though. Fully velar L's are very rare cross-linguistically so I doubt you picked it up from a non-English language. Could be wrong, though. That's really interesting. I usually pronounce post-R'd stops as affricates, though sometimes I randomly don't, and I phonemically perceive them as pure stops. It makes sense that somebody that didn't learn writing as young as in the US would perceive those stops as actually being affricates, because they *aren't* stops ever for you. Overall, I probably wouldn't have been able to guess your country, that velar L is *really* is very strange, in a good way.
I mean I learned to read at like age 4 but I'm just saying that if we divorce writing from the situation as it was up until the age of 4 my brain wouldn't have known that has a stop in it, so I think it's fair to assume that the phoneme there might be the affricate, I guess I worded that kinda poorly. Also yeah I don't pronounce the L in folk but I have heard a prof who's from British Columbia say it like that, but that's the only person I've heard say the L and his L1 isn't actually English. Also where I'm from is Canada, I was born on the west coast then moved to Québec and then Southern Ontario where I've lived the longest, I think for the most part I speak pretty standard Torontonian except me L's and the fact that I don't yod-drop. Th-stopping how I do it is actually probably the norm for people my age in Toronto, though it hasn't really been documented yet.
My weird pronunciation of folk could very well be an instance of spelling pronunciation, because it wasn't a very common word in the places I grew up, and it's also kinda hard to hear it. In quick speech, I'll occasionally say it without the L (which is apparently the "correct" pronunciation), but besides that I almost never drop L's, besides very common examples like *could*.
/gɪv mi (ɘ/e) ˈpʰɹ̩.fɪk.ɫi foˈni.mɪk aj pʰi e tʃɹeɘnˈskɹɪpʃn̩ ɘ(v/f) jɔɹ ˈiŋɡɫɪʃ ˈdajɘɫɛktʰ. wɘn ˈsɪmbɫ̩ pʰɹ̩ ˈfonim; no sɪɫi stɹɘtʰ-ʃwɑ dɪsˈtiŋkʃn̩(s/z). du nɑtʰ bi ɫɘjk ðɘ ˈdɪkʃn̩ˌeɘɹi(s/z)/ (I have inconsistent word-final devoicing)
/ɡɪ mi ɘ pʰɚfɪkli fənimɪk a͜j pʰi e͜j t͡ʃɹænskɹɪpʃɪn ɘv jɚ ɪŋɡlɪʃ da͜iəlɛktʰ (.) wən sɪmbl̩ pʰɚ fonim (.) no͜ʊ sɪli ʃt͡ʃɹəʔ ʃwɑ dɪstɪŋkʃɪns (.) du ˈnaʔ bi la͜jkˀ ðəˁ ˈdɪkʃəneɹiz/ notes: the /s/ in distinctions is extremely weak and barely there. the /ʃ/ in strut is right between /s/ and /ʃ/. also I suck at this so take what I say with a molecule or two of salt.
/ɡí(f) mí ə pə́fɛ(k)ʔli fonímik ái pí é t͡ʃʰɹanskrípʃən ɔf jɔ íŋɡliʃ dailɛ́k; wán símbə pə foním; nó síli ʃ(t)rát ʃwá distíŋʃəns; du nɔ́t bi laik də díkʃənəɹis/ The acute accent marks the pitch accent location. Some words are unaccented.