Linguistics

1204 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to the community about the science of human Language!

Everyone is welcome here: from laypeople to professionals, Historical linguists to discourse analysts, structuralists to generativists.

Rules:

  1. Instance rules apply.
  2. Be reasonable, constructive, and conductive to discussion.
  3. Stay on-topic, specially for more divisive subjects. And avoid unnecessary mentioning topics and individuals prone to derail the discussion.
  4. Post sources when reasonable to do so. And when sharing links to paywalled content, provide either a short summary of the content or a freely accessible archive link.
  5. Avoid crack theories and pseudoscientific claims.
  6. Have fun!

Related communities:

Resources:

Grammar Watch - contains descriptions of the grammars of multiple languages, from the whole world.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
76
77
 
 
78
79
80
81
82
 
 

they were taking part in an unusual experiment, which involved tracking their own voices over time. This was done by making 10-minute recordings every few weeks. They would sit in front of a microphone and repeat the same 29 words as they appeared on a computer screen. Food. Coffee. Hid. Airflow.

One of those changes was the "ou" sound in words such as "flow" and "sew" that shifted towards the front of the vocal tract.

I'm not actually sure what sound change they're describing there. Can anyone explain with examples or IPA?

edit: Cheers for the answers (turns out I misunderstood which part is the vocal tract)

83
84
85
86
 
 

This is not bad

87
88
89
90
91
92
 
 
93
94
95
96
97
98
 
 

Hi, I'm a casual linguistics nerd (no degrees), speaking Philippine English with heavy American influence.

My accent of English has pre-nasal /æ/ raising and I've caught myself raising it in other places like before /g/.

When I look at English language learning videos (out of curiosity) I have not found anyone mention /æ/ raising in them.

Why is this case?

99
100
 
 

I'm sharing this mostly as a historical curiosity; Schleicher was genial, but the book is a century and half old, science marches on, so it isn't exactly good source material. Still an enjoyable read if you like Historical Linguistics, as it was one of the first successful attempts to reconstruct a language based on indirect output from its child languages.

view more: ‹ prev next ›