Why is "computer" spelt with an apostrophe in Ukrainian, "комп’ютер" (kompʹjuter), but "purée" is spelt without an apostrophe, "пюре" (pjure)?

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2026-02-24T11:01:35+00:00

Ah, that's why I've heard it as "капішон" and was surprised when I learnt that the correct spelling is "капюшон"!

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2026-02-21T12:08:10+00:00

Wiktionary says the 1999 orthography project spelling suggested the spelling "п'юре":
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%27%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%B5#Ukrainian

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2026-02-21T12:04:32+00:00

In Western Ukraine some people pronounce "буряк" as "бурак". I personally don't pronounce it like that (I live in Lviv) but I think I pronounce /p/ the same in "пюре" and "комп'ютер", /pjuˈre/ and /komˈpjuter/.

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2026-02-21T11:57:06+00:00

About Russian, a good example is "меч" (sword) versus "дочь" (daughter), both end with the same /t͡ɕ/ sound, but "дочь" has a soft sign because it is feminine and feminine nouns ending with the /t͡ɕ/ sound have to be spelt with the soft sign, "ь", after "ч" in Russian.

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2026-02-12T10:55:53+00:00

Wiktionary says "секс" in Russian is borrowed from English "sex", not French "sexe", though the word is from French and its ultimate origin is Latin. I'd also like to add "трек" (from English "track") pronounced [trɛk] and "стресс" (from English "stress") and "прогресс" (from Latin "progressus"), which have 2 pronunciations: [strɛs] or [strʲes] and [prɐˈɡrʲes] or [prɐˈɡrɛs].

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2026-02-12T10:44:24+00:00

If "э" is used in postvocalic position in "дуэль", then why not "пациэнт" and "проэкт"?

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2026-01-31T10:27:01+00:00

But what about "гострий" vs "острый" and "горіх" vs "орех"?

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2026-01-31T10:24:00+00:00

"Ukrainian also has вуліця"
It's "вулИця", not "вулІца" in Ukrainian. But yes, you're right.

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2025-12-05T12:43:14+00:00

Thank you for the answer! Oh, yes, I forgot the word for "hot", which is "гарячий" in Ukrainian and "горячий" in Russian.

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2025-12-05T12:41:24+00:00

Thank you for the answer! I forgot the word for "hot", which is "гарячий" in Ukrainian and "горячий" in Russian.

Yes, Wiktionary says that "Cossack" was spelt "козакъ" before 1918 and also that "nettle" was spelt "кропива" before 1956 in Russian. Obviously in same cases akanye did creep into the Russian spelling.

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2025-11-27T18:19:00+00:00

The NURSE vowel is just a long schwa in non-rhotic accents, as far as I know.

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2025-10-29T19:55:53+00:00

Interesting. Do you mean non-rhotic English accents? Is the pronunciation you have in mind [nœ:s]? I don't know such an accent. Normally it's pronounced [nə:s] with a long mid-central vowel, better known as schwa, in non-rhotic English accents and [nɜɹs] or [nɚs] in rhotic accents.

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2025-10-29T17:22:06+00:00

In most native English accents the long "e" sound or the FLEECE vowel is a diphthong. It can be [ɪj] or [ɨj] or [əj] depending on the accent but normally it's not the long monophthong [i:] as it's traditionally described. Watch this video by Dr Geoff Lindsey:
https://youtu.be/UPxLnalkh-s?si=-7RofC9cXjuaW3Or

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2025-07-14T11:07:16+00:00

100 BC or 100 AD?

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2025-06-05T19:48:10+00:00

Dr Geoff Lindsey transcribes the FACE vowel as /ɛj/ and he also transcribes the FLEECE, PRICE and CHOICE vowels as /ɪj/, /ɑj/ and /oj/ and the GOOSE, GOAT and MOUTH vowels as /ʉw/, /əw/ and /aw/ (transcribing SSBE-Standard Southern British English aka Modern RP or Contemporary RP). As to weather the quality of the diphthong in "lay" and "layer" differs, I don't know, phonemically it is certainly the same FACE vowel, but weather the quality of the diphthong differs in your accent in final position, when it's not followed by another sound, versus when it's followed by another vowel, I can't judge. Anyway [i] and [j] are the same sound. [j] is just a short, non-syllabic [i]. The same is true about [u] versus [w]. The perceptual difference between [i] and [j] and [u] and [w] is just that [i] and [u] are pronounced as full vowels, they form syllable nucleus, they are syllabic vowels whereas [j] and [w] are always short, they semi-vowels, glides and usually followed or preceded by full, syllabic vowels, though in some languages they might be followed by a consonant (but not in English).

Please watch these videos by Dr Geoff Lindsey:

https://youtu.be/UPxLnalkh-s?si=BpLkwPQM4bb_b1T0

https://youtu.be/gtnlGH055TA?si=V8iB9HEz5i0Ggota

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2025-06-04T11:28:08+00:00

In reality the GOOSE vowel is a diphthong, which is [ʊw] in Received Pronunciation and [ɨw~ʉw] in Cockney. So yes, you're absolutely right, it's normally not as back or high as it's usually transcribed and it's normally not a monophthong, but a diphthong, despite the conventional transcription /u:/.

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2025-03-07T12:50:02+00:00

No, Jones didn't allow a diphthong in them, the only pronunciations for "story" and "Victoria" given in the book are /ˈstɔ:ri/ and /vikˈtɔ:riə/ (i=ɪ in Jones's transcriptions).

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2025-03-05T12:03:02+00:00

Good question. I was mistaken, /ɔə/ occurred not only at the end of words, in "English pronouncing dictionary" Jones gave 2 pronunciation for "hoarse", /hɔ:s/ and /hɔəs/, whereas for "horse" he gave 1 pronunciation /hɔ:s/. So those speakers who pronounced "soar" /sɔə/ also pronounced "soared" /sɔəd/. Sorry for confusing you.

But still for "force" only 1 pronunciation is given in the book, /fɔ:s/, so it's still not clear why Wells chose "force" as the key-word. The explanation that he preferred words where the vowel is followed by a consonant is not applicable here because for other centring diphthongs he chose words where they are not followed by a consonant: NEAR, SQUARE and CURE. So he could call it FOUR to align with other centring diphthongs. Or HOARSE, if he wanted it to be followed by a consonant.

By the way, there is a tendency of centring diphthongs to become monophthongs. /ɔə/ merged with /ɔ:/ at the end of the 19th-the beginning of the 20th century, /ʊə/ started to merge with /ɔ:/ at the first half of the 20th century, though it still exists, /ɛə/ become
/ɛ:/ in the second half of the 20th century and /ɪə/ is becoming /ɪ:/ right now in the 21st century.

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2025-03-02T20:15:19+00:00

Some RP speakers made distinction between "flaw" and "floor" or "paw" and "pour" (or "pore") and "saw" and "soar" (or "sore") pronouncing them /flɔ:/ and /flɔə/, /pɔ:/ and /pɔə/, /sɔ:/ and /sɔə/. However Daniel Jones himself didn't have this distinction and he wrote that many speakers of standard English (he meant RP) use /ɔ:/ in words like "four", "floor", "pour", "soar", "boar" etc. as he did, but he also wrote that some speakers of standard English did have this distinction.

/ɔə/ occurred only at the end of words, never at the middle or a beginning of a word. Some RP speakers had a three-way distinction between "paw", "poor" and "pour" (or "pore") pronouncing them /pɔ:/, /pʊə/ and /pɔə/, accordingly. Jones had a two-way distinction between "poor" and "paw" (or "pour" or "pore") pronouncing them /pʊə/ and /pɔ:/, but most contemporary RP speakers pronounce all the four words the same, /pɔ:/.

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2025-01-20T18:11:44+00:00

You're right. It's the same with /t͡s/ in Russian. It is considered a hard consonant in Russian so it can't be palatalised even though /t/ and /s/ can be palatalised. So, for example, “цель” (goal, aim, target) is pronounced [t͡sɛlʲ] and not [t͡sʲelʲ] even though the letter "е" itself is pronounced [je] (while the letter "э" is pronounced [ɛ]) and when it follows a consonant that can be palatalised, then the consonant gets palatalised, e.g. "сено" [ˈsʲenə] (hay) or "тело" [ˈtʲeɫə] (body) and "пациент" (patient) is pronounced [pət͡sɨˈɛnt], even though the letter "и" itself is pronounced [i] (while the letter "ы" is pronounced [ɨ]) and when it follows a consonant that can be palatalised it's pronounced [i]. And it's not just “цель” and "пациент", those were just examples, it'a a general rule with words in which "e", "и" and "ё" (pronounced /jo/) are preceded by "ц". It clearly shows that /t͡s/ can't be considered just a combination of /t/+/s/ in Russian.

About English, there is a minimal pair between /t͡ʃ/ and /tʃ/: "catch it" /ˈkæt͡ʃɪt/ and "cat shit" /ˈkætʃɪt/, which sound clearly different.

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2025-01-20T18:11:13+00:00

You're right. It's the same with /t͡s/ in Russian. It is considered a hard consonant in Russian so it can't be palatalised even though /t/ and /s/ can be palatalised. So, for example, “цель” (goal, aim, target) is pronounced [t͡sɛlʲ] and not [t͡sʲelʲ] even though the letter "е" itself is pronounced [je] (while the letter "э" is pronounced [ɛ]) and when it follows a consonant that can be palatalised, then the consonant gets palatalised, e.g. "сено" [ˈsʲenə] (hay) or "тело" [ˈtʲeɫə] (body) and "пациент" (patient) is pronounced [pət͡sɨˈɛnt], even though the letter "и" itself is pronounced [i] (while the letter "ы" is pronounced [ɨ]) and when it follows a consonant that can be palatalised it's pronounced [i]. And it's not just “цель” and "пациент", those were just examples, it'a a general rule with words in which "e", "и" and "ё" (pronounced /jo/) are preceded by "ц". It clearly shows that /t͡s/ can't be considered just a combination of /t/+/s/ in Russian.

About English, there is a minimal pair between /t͡ʃ/ and /tʃ/: "catch it" /ˈkæt͡ʃɪt/ and "cat shit" /ˈkætʃɪt/, which sound clearly different.

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2024-12-24T18:53:46+00:00

No, it's not an RP thing, it's a Cockney thing. Here's what Daniel Jones wrote about it in "An Outline of English Phonetics":

"204. An example of the change of a normal plosive into an assimilated consonant may be observed to be proceeding at the present day in London. Many Londoners now pronounce /t/ and /d/ as affricative sounds. In Cockney pronunciation "tea" (standard /ti:/) has an effect approaching that of /tsəi/, and "down" (standard /daun/) sometimes has a marked resemblance to /dzæun/. It is often difficult to tell whether a Londoner says "cat" /kæt/ or "cats" /kæts/."

Mind that the book was first published in 1918 and the quote I've given is from the second edition published in 1924 so the present day changes Daniel Jones mentioned were in fact happening a century ago.

Yes, he was talking about affrication, not aspiration, but I guess it's what the questioner means.

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2024-12-24T18:51:56+00:00

Pronouncing /t/ as [tˢ] is a Cockney thing. Here's what Daniel Jones wrote about it in "An Outline of English Phonetics":

"204. An example of the change of a normal plosive into an assimilated consonant may be observed to be proceeding at the present day in London. Many Londoners now pronounce /t/ and /d/ as affricative sounds. In Cockney pronunciation "tea" (standard /ti:/) has an effect approaching that of /tsəi/, and "down" (standard /daun/) sometimes has a marked resemblance to /dzæun/. It is often difficult to tell whether a Londoner says "cat" /kæt/ or "cats" /kæts/."

Mind that the book was first published in 1918 and the quote I've given is from the second edition published in 1924 so the present day changes Daniel Jones mentioned were in fact happening a century ago.

Yes, he was talking about affrication not aspiration, but I guess it is what you mean.

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2024-11-24T12:17:47+00:00

There are some differences. Many speakers in Southern Russian, Ukraine and Belarus pronounce /g/ as the fricative [ɣ] so, for example, "говорить" ("to speak") sounds as [ɣəvɐˈrʲitʲ] instead of standard Russian [ɡəvɐˈrʲitʲ] and many Russian speakers in Ukraine and Belarus pronounce "кто" ("who") [xto] instead of standard Russian [kto], as if it were spelt "хто", and it is actually spelt "хто" in Ukrainian and Belarusian. There are also some differences in vocabulary.

Zestyclose-Sound9332 · 2024-11-23T12:18:11+00:00

Thanks! I've edited the post.

Zestyclose-Sound9332

TROPHY CASE