Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Just think how you pronounce the syllable ham when referring to a piece of meat and when talking about a fury animal—a long ham and a short ham-ster.

Hang on. Y'all pronounce these differently? I've lived in four U.S. regions and have a pretty generic middle-American accent and I'm having trouble even thinking what the distinction might be.



Canadian (Toronto) English speaker, although I’ve lived in the US (NYC and Seattle) for a while and it probably rubbed off on me.

To me they sound pretty much same if you’re very consciously saying the words as units, in isolation, “trying to pronounce them”.

If I say them a little more casually, though, the sounds that come out of my mouth are a little bit closer to “haam” and “hmster” - the vowel sound definitely gets emphasized in the former case and clipped almost entirely in the latter case.

It’s really easy to trick yourself into thinking you’re saying a word “properly” unless you’re very very conscious of the sounds you’re producing. As a Canadian, I know this - the stereotype Americans have of the Canadian accent is exaggerated, and it’s much stronger in rural areas, to the extent that I didn’t really think I sounded any different to the Americans in TV or movies. But Americans could still pretty quickly tell I was Canadian when I moved down there. The word “about” is one of the canonical tells, and although I don’t say “aboot” or anything, I learned that I do really say it in an accented way. It wouldn’t be apparent if you just asked me to pronounce the word, but in a sentence my mouth would gloss over the vowels, saying something more like “abut”.


I tested them out loud in the context of sentences: "Can I get some ham on that sandwich?" and "Did you get your kid a hamster?" and the "ham" part still sounds exactly the same to me.

It could definitely be an accent or something that I just happen not to have heard much. It just surprised me that I couldn't think of what difference the author was thinking there might be.


I pronounce the vowels in Mary, marry, and merry differently— like mail, marathon, and merit– but apparently that's not true in many places in the US. My regional accent is pretty mild, but I did grow up in a famously heavily accented area.


Boston by chance?


Yes MA, but closer to RI, which is fairly different in some ways. The closest famous example is Emeril Lagasse, who most people assume is from New York. One big factor is the short O pronunciation being a lot rounder. Coffee is cawfee, like it is closer to NYC.


We're talking about allophonic differences here, which are notoriously hard for native speakers to hear.

How well do you hear the difference between the /p/ sounds in words like pill, pat, punk vs. spill, spat and spunk?


Not very well at all. I barely even think of P as having its own sound at all. It has an air puffing sound, but the vowel is the only difference I actually hear with those words.


Ok, that almost certainly means you can't hear the difference between the aspirated and unaspirated allophones. That's absolutely typical of native speakers: they can't hear the difference between allophones.

Now try standing in front of a mirror, and hold a Kleenex (tissue...) in front of your mouth while pronouncing those words. You'll probably see a tiny flutter when pronouncing 'spill', 'spy' etc., but a large movement when pronouncing 'pill', 'pie' etc. The tissue is showing a difference that your ears have a hard time with. Not because the difference is hard to hear--a Thai speaker would have no problem--but because the sounds are allophonic in English (but phonemic in Thai).


It's hard to really evaluate in isolation, but if I put them in sentences I slur them about the same.


Hm, is it saying "hamster" is /æ/ whereas "ham" is /æː/? I can't actually find a source that uses IPA yet bothers with vowel length right now ...

Even in dialects where it is not traditionally transcribed (such as American - partly because long vowels are most common in place of a disappearing /r/), usually there is in fact an audible difference when you aren't thinking about it. This is part of why computer speech always used to sound so terrible. The most blatant example is when comparing vowels before /t/ vs before /d/, which means that "matter" (short) and "madder" (long) are distinguishable even in accents where /t/ is pronounced like /d/ in this context.

Note that this is orthogonal to stress (since both syllables are stressed in this example), and also orthogonal to the badly-named "long vowel, short vowel" taught in school (which is actually for completely different vowel sounds and which omits several other vowel sounds).


Now you're making me wonder if I just don't make enough distinctions in my speech or something, at least when it comes to the short A sound.

If I speak these sentences out loud, the words sound exactly the same to me:

"That doesn't matter at all." "He was madder than hell."

Incidentally I'd say both A's here also sound just like my A's in ham and hamster! It's a very pinched sound, almost nasally. My choir director has had to train it out of us by exaggerating it and making it sound even more ridiculous because it has no place in singing.


Sign of the quintessential American. For me, a Jamaican, "madder" and "matter" are very distinct. And I don't think I'll ever get how a "t" becomes a "d".


[t] is just the voiceless version of [d] and vice versa. The more lazily you pronounce the [t] between two vowels, the closer to [d] it becomes because it's less work to just keep the vocal chords vibrating.


I mean, everything is dialect-specific, and there is a lot of variation between dialects around /æ/ in particular (trap-bath, bad-lad, Mary-marry-merry, and the whole mess of /æ/-raising/tensing - is ban-back an example that's always split?).

But I'd still say it'd be interesting to record your voice and check the actual timings even if you can't consciously hear the length. Assuming you can actually practice running speech while thinking about it, of course.


It’s not about vowel length. It’s about the time spent saying the actual word


For dialects that have this (not all English dialects do), the difference in time for the two words is precisely the difference in time for the two vowels.


Perhaps. And perhaps not. Many would elongate or voice ("voice" in the linguistic sense meaning activate the vocal cords) the m in ham - not just the lengthen the a - in a way that they wouldn't when saying hamster, in which they might pronounce the "m" as a glottal stop (the reason why hamster is often misspelled as "hampster") or as a voiceless bilabial consonant.

Regardless, it's a red herring, because vowel length can also refer to "long" vs "short" vowels as in Bake vs. Back. Thats a different, and in my view more common, meaning of vowel length


Elongating the voice is exactly what I mean by an allophonic difference.

As for 'hamster', no one (that I know of) pronounces the /m/ as a glottal stop, although people sometimes epenthesize a voiceless consonant [p] (by devoicing the end of the /m/). Where some English dialects get a glottal stop is for an intervocalic or word-final /t/ (in addition, of course, to the glottal stop in the middle of 'oh-oh' and 'uh-uh'). I've also heard American English speakers glottalize word-final /k/ and sometimes /t/, but a glottalized stop is not the same as a glottal stop.


> The most blatant example is when comparing vowels before /t/ vs before /d/, which means that "matter" (short) and "madder" (long) are distinguishable

This doesn't resonate with me - the `ma` in both those words are pronounced exactly the same and are of the same duration when speaking.

I checked a few youtube videos now before responding (some science video with 'matter' in the title and some video with 'madder' in the title) and there isn't a distinguishable difference.

Do you have a few links to videos that show a difference?


I'm an ESL, mind you but

I think the vowel gets pretty cramped with similar short vowels (hem-ham-hum) so the tendency is to make it more different. It drifted away in general in American English, but the vowel in "air" stands in the way in non-rhotic accents, so the change is much more random and word specific.


Australian English is supposed to have phonemic vowel length, such that "can" (the container) and "can" (the auxiliary verb) are pronounced differently.


Australian English indeed has phonemic vowel length. For the average speaker, the only distinction between 'but' and 'Bart' is length.


Author is in England.


I'm in England and I don't get what they're saying.

Edit - ah I see reading the context now, it's not the pronunciation but the speed. Hamster has a very fast ham sound


Speed (or more accurately, length) is a part of pronunciation. English speakers don't often think about vowel length because it has no semantic significance like in some other languages, but there's still some phonemic variation, depending on one's dialect.


> Y'all … thinning …

Kind of gave it away there.


I edited the 2nd one because it was an actual typo, but ironically the American south is not one of the regions where I've lived. I just find "y'all" clearer than any of its alternatives!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: