Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an adjacent vowel in English?

[Dingbat]

Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an adjacent
vowel in English?

Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a couple
of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

DIRNDL (DIANDL in Austria) seems like a German spelling which leaves
us with DREIDL.

The German spelling DREIDEL is used in English, but how did there
come to also be the alternate spelling DREIDL in English?

Alternatively, why aren't more syllabic consonants spelled without
an adjacent vowel in English orthography?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an adjacent
vowel in English?
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a couple
of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.
DIRNDL (DIANDL in Austria) seems like a German spelling which leaves
us with DREIDL.
The German spelling DREIDEL is used in English, but how did there
come to also be the alternate spelling DREIDL in English?
Alternatively, why aren't more syllabic consonants spelled without
an adjacent vowel in English orthography?

Berg & Aronson included that very suffix in their study published in
*Language* in 2017.

I've never seen "dreidl"; it probably reflects a transliteration of
the Yiddish. Cf. the name "Yentl," used by Streisand in her movie.

[Dingbat]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an adjacent
vowel in English?
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a couple
of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.
DIRNDL (DIANDL in Austria) seems like a German spelling which leaves
us with DREIDL.
The German spelling DREIDEL is used in English, but how did there
come to also be the alternate spelling DREIDL in English?
Alternatively, why aren't more syllabic consonants spelled without
an adjacent vowel in English orthography?

Berg & Aronson included that very suffix in their study published in
*Language* in 2017.

Do you know what they said about it?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I've never seen "dreidl"; it probably reflects a transliteration of
the Yiddish.

I just had occasion to play DREIDLS in a Scrabble game. It's listed
in both the Collins (UK/ International) & M-W (US) dictionaries.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Cf. the name "Yentl," used by Streisand in her movie.

Thanks. I'm surprised to find that Cf. is short for Latin "confer"
meaning "compare", cuz it doesn't mean compare in English.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cf.

[Tak To]

Post by Dingbat

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an adjacent
vowel in English?
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a couple
of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.
DIRNDL (DIANDL in Austria) seems like a German spelling which leaves
us with DREIDL.
The German spelling DREIDEL is used in English, but how did there
come to also be the alternate spelling DREIDL in English?
Alternatively, why aren't more syllabic consonants spelled without
an adjacent vowel in English orthography?

Berg & Aronson included that very suffix in their study published in
*Language* in 2017.

Do you know what they said about it?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I've never seen "dreidl"; it probably reflects a transliteration of
the Yiddish.

I just had occasion to play DREIDLS in a Scrabble game. It's listed
in both the Collins (UK/ International) & M-W (US) dictionaries.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Cf. the name "Yentl," used by Streisand in her movie.

Thanks. I'm surprised to find that Cf. is short for Latin "confer"
meaning "compare", cuz it doesn't mean compare in English.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cf.

?? In the above Wikip article:

] cf., an abbreviation for the Latin word confer, meaning
] "compare" or "consult"

What do you think it means?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Dingbat

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an adjacent
vowel in English?
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a couple
of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.
DIRNDL (DIANDL in Austria) seems like a German spelling which leaves
us with DREIDL.
The German spelling DREIDEL is used in English, but how did there
come to also be the alternate spelling DREIDL in English?
Alternatively, why aren't more syllabic consonants spelled without
an adjacent vowel in English orthography?

Berg & Aronson included that very suffix in their study published in
*Language* in 2017.

Do you know what they said about it?

Of course. They said that over the centuries they studied, some words
settled down with -el, some with -le.

Same pattern as the other five suffixes they studied.

Post by Dingbat

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I've never seen "dreidl"; it probably reflects a transliteration of
the Yiddish.

I just had occasion to play DREIDLS in a Scrabble game. It's listed
in both the Collins (UK/ International) & M-W (US) dictionaries.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Cf. the name "Yentl," used by Streisand in her movie.

Thanks. I'm surprised to find that Cf. is short for Latin "confer"
meaning "compare", cuz it doesn't mean compare in English.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cf.

What on earth else would it mean in English? It's the very first entry
on that disambiguation page.

[Dingbat]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Dingbat

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an adjacent
vowel in English?
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a couple
of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.
DIRNDL (DIANDL in Austria) seems like a German spelling which leaves
us with DREIDL.
The German spelling DREIDEL is used in English, but how did there
come to also be the alternate spelling DREIDL in English?
Alternatively, why aren't more syllabic consonants spelled without
an adjacent vowel in English orthography?

Berg & Aronson included that very suffix in their study published in
*Language* in 2017.

Do you know what they said about it?

Of course. They said that over the centuries they studied, some words
settled down with -el, some with -le.
Same pattern as the other five suffixes they studied.

Post by Dingbat

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I've never seen "dreidl"; it probably reflects a transliteration of
the Yiddish.

I just had occasion to play DREIDLS in a Scrabble game. It's listed
in both the Collins (UK/ International) & M-W (US) dictionaries.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Cf. the name "Yentl," used by Streisand in her movie.

Thanks. I'm surprised to find that Cf. is short for Latin "confer"
meaning "compare", cuz it doesn't mean compare in English.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cf.

What on earth else would it mean in English? It's the very first entry
on that disambiguation page.

Having now seen the page, it could only mean that. But I was surprised
to find that confer meant (or could mean) compare in Latin.

FWIW, I've found this list of English abbreviations from Latin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_abbreviations

[Joseph C. Fineman]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Dingbat
Thanks. I'm surprised to find that Cf. is short for Latin "confer"
meaning "compare", cuz it doesn't mean compare in English.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cf.

What on earth else would it mean in English? It's the very first entry
on that disambiguation page.

Many people use it more vaguely, as equivalent to "see". I was startled
to see it, in a table of "common abbreviations" in _The Modern Researcher_
by Jacques Barzun (a persnickety stylist) & Henry F. Graff, with the
definition "compare or see". That is in the 3rd ed. (1977), but
probably goes back to the 1st ed. (1957). In any case, I infer that
the precise meaning is a lost cause. That is a pity, in that "see" does
not need an abbreviation, especially not one that is as long as the word
itself and properly means something else. There is no end to the
foolishness of this world.

[Dingbat]

Ranjit asked after giving examples of
syllabic l written without an adjacent

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Dingbat
why aren't more syllabic consonants
spelled without an adjacent vowel
in English orthography?

Berg & Aronson included that very
suffix in their study published in
*Language* in 2017.
They said that over the centuries
they studied, some words settled
down with -el, some with -le.

Ranjit comments:
AFAIK, axolotl has a syllabic l. That
a syllabic l is hard to describe to
the average Anglo could be why these
descriptions show a vowel before l.

The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from
Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl [aːˈʃoːloːtɬ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl

In National Geographic
The axolotl (pronounced ACK-suh-LAH-tuhl)

[RH Draney]

Post by Dingbat
AFAIK, axolotl has a syllabic l. That
a syllabic l is hard to describe to
the average Anglo could be why these
descriptions show a vowel before l.
The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from
Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl [aːˈʃoːloːtɬ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl
In National Geographic
The axolotl (pronounced ACK-suh-LAH-tuhl)

Shake and shake
The axolotl.
If you won't do it
I don't know what'll.

....r

[Peter Young]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Dingbat
AFAIK, axolotl has a syllabic l. That
a syllabic l is hard to describe to
the average Anglo could be why these
descriptions show a vowel before l.
The axolotl (/�æksəlɒtəl/, from
Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl [aː��oːloːtɬ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl
In National Geographic
The axolotl (pronounced ACK-suh-LAH-tuhl)

Shake and shake
The axolotl.
If you won't do it
I don't know what'll.

Shake and shake the ketchup bottle.
None will come, and then a lot'll.

Peter.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Peter Young

Post by RH Draney

Post by Dingbat
AFAIK, axolotl has a syllabic l. That
a syllabic l is hard to describe to
the average Anglo could be why these
descriptions show a vowel before l.
The axolotl (/0 >>> Classical Nahuatl: 0 >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl
In National Geographic
The axolotl (pronounced ACK-suh-LAH-tuhl)

Shake and shake
The axolotl.
If you won't do it
I don't know what'll.

Shake and shake the ketchup bottle.
None will come, and then a lot'll.

+1 (more or less).
Shake and shake the ketchup bottle.
First none will come, and then a lot'll.

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter Young

Post by RH Draney

The axolotl (/̃¦ksəlɒtəl/, from
Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl [aː̊oːloːtɬ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl
In National Geographic
The axolotl (pronounced ACK-suh-LAH-tuhl)

Shake and shake
The axolotl.
If you won't do it
I don't know what'll.

Shake and shake the ketchup bottle.
None will come, and then a lot'll.

Shake and shake the ketchup bottle,
To get out that axolotl.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter Young

Post by RH Draney
Shake and shake
The axolotl.
If you won't do it
I don't know what'll.

Shake and shake the ketchup bottle.
None will come, and then a lot'll.

Shake and shake the ketchup bottle,
To get out that axolotl.

Or you could fling it with the aid of an atlatl.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Dingbat
AFAIK, axolotl has a syllabic l. That
a syllabic l is hard to describe to
the average Anglo could be why these
descriptions show a vowel before l.
The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from
Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl [aːˈʃoːloːtɬ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl
In National Geographic
The axolotl (pronounced ACK-suh-LAH-tuhl)

Shake and shake
The axolotl.
If you won't do it
I don't know what'll.

I wandered, lonely as a clod,
Among the rags and broken bottles
When all at once I came upon
A host of slimy axolotls.
Beside the lake, beneath the trees
Enough to make a man's blood freeze.

[RH Draney]

Post by Peter Moylan

   Shake and shake
   The axolotl.
   If you won't do it
   I don't know what'll.

I wandered, lonely as a clod,
Among the rags and broken bottles
When all at once I came upon
A host of slimy axolotls.
Beside the lake, beneath the trees
Enough to make a man's blood freeze.

Got something against amphibians, have we?...r

[CDB]

Post by RH Draney

Shake and shake The axolotl. If you won't do it I don't know
what'll.

I wandered, lonely as a clod, Among the rags and broken bottles
When all at once I came upon A host of slimy axolotls. Beside the
lake, beneath the trees Enough to make a man's blood freeze.

Got something against amphibians, have we?...r

The gills! The gills!

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Dingbat
AFAIK, axolotl has a syllabic l. That
  a syllabic l is hard to describe to
  the average Anglo could be why these
  descriptions show a vowel before l.
The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from
  Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl [aːˈʃoːloːtɬ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl
In National Geographic
The axolotl (pronounced ACK-suh-LAH-tuhl)

   Shake and shake
   The axolotl.
   If you won't do it
   I don't know what'll.

I wandered, lonely as a clod,
Among the rags and broken bottles
When all at once I came upon
A host of slimy axolotls.
Beside the lake, beneath the trees
Enough to make a man's blood freeze.

The trouble with most axolo'ls
Is ge'in' them caugh' in the wa'les;
Such painful abrasion
Is no' the occasion
To fre' abou' stoppin' yer glo'als.

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Dingbat
AFAIK, axolotl has a syllabic l. That
  a syllabic l is hard to describe to
  the average Anglo could be why these
  descriptions show a vowel before l.
The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from
  Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl [aːˈʃoːloːtɬ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl
In National Geographic
The axolotl (pronounced ACK-suh-LAH-tuhl)

   Shake and shake
   The axolotl.
   If you won't do it
   I don't know what'll.

I wandered, lonely as a clod,
Among the rags and broken bottles
When all at once I came upon
A host of slimy axolotls.
Beside the lake, beneath the trees
Enough to make a man's blood freeze.

The trouble with most axolo'ls
Is ge'in' them caugh' in the wa'les;
Such painful abrasion
Is no' the occasion
To fre' abou' stoppin' yer glo'als.

<like>

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Dingbat
AFAIK, axolotl has a syllabic l. That
  a syllabic l is hard to describe to
  the average Anglo could be why these
  descriptions show a vowel before l.
The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from
  Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl [aːˈʃoːloːtɬ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl
In National Geographic
The axolotl (pronounced ACK-suh-LAH-tuhl)

   Shake and shake
   The axolotl.
   If you won't do it
   I don't know what'll.

I wandered, lonely as a clod,
Among the rags and broken bottles
When all at once I came upon
A host of slimy axolotls.
Beside the lake, beneath the trees
Enough to make a man's blood freeze.

The trouble with most axolo'ls
Is ge'in' them caugh' in the wa'les;
Such painful abrasion
Is no' the occasion
To fre' abou' stoppin' yer glo'als.

:-)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Dingbat
AFAIK, axolotl has a syllabic l. That
a syllabic l is hard to describe to
the average Anglo could be why these
descriptions show a vowel before l.
The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from
Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl [aːˈʃoːloːtɬ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl

Now that everyone's had their fun, the Wikip transcription (or your
reprint) is faulty: the closing voiceless lateral should be superscript,
indicating that the final phoneme (which happens to be the Nahua
definite article) is an affricate, not a consonant sequence.

As for the spelling, English is quite hospitable to the spellings in the
source language, and presumably when Aztec scribes learned to write their
language with the Spanish alphabet, they felt no need to insert a vowel
letter inside or adjacent to an affricated phoneme, so that's how it's
come into English. (Words that came through Spanish have generally lost
the -l indication, e.g. tomato.)

Note also the spelling-pronunciation with /ks/ instead of /S/, thanks
to Spanish orthography.

[CDB]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Ranjit comments: AFAIK, axolotl has a syllabic l. That a syllabic l
is hard to describe to the average Anglo could be why these
descriptions show a vowel before l.
The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl
[aːˈʃoːloːtɬ] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl

Now that everyone's had their fun, the Wikip transcription (or your
reprint) is faulty: the closing voiceless lateral should be
superscript, indicating that the final phoneme (which happens to be
the Nahua definite article) is an affricate, not a consonant
sequence.
As for the spelling, English is quite hospitable to the spellings in
the source language, and presumably when Aztec scribes learned to
write their language with the Spanish alphabet, they felt no need to
insert a vowel letter inside or adjacent to an affricated phoneme, so
that's how it's come into English. (Words that came through Spanish
have generally lost the -l indication, e.g. tomato.)
Note also the spelling-pronunciation with /ks/ instead of /S/,
thanks to Spanish orthography.

FWIW, the "-tl" ending seems to be unvoiced in the modern language, and
is sometimes reduced to [k], as in "Chapultepec" (Grasshopper Hill, from
"chapulín" + "tepetl"). Around 1960, I heard that name pronounced by
Mexicans in Mexico City with a glottal stop in place of the final
consonants.

[Quinn C]

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels

The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl
[aːˈʃoːloːtɬ] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl

Now that everyone's had their fun, the Wikip transcription (or your
reprint) is faulty: the closing voiceless lateral should be
superscript, indicating that the final phoneme (which happens to be
the Nahua definite article) is an affricate, not a consonant
sequence.
As for the spelling, English is quite hospitable to the spellings in
the source language, and presumably when Aztec scribes learned to
write their language with the Spanish alphabet, they felt no need to
insert a vowel letter inside or adjacent to an affricated phoneme, so
that's how it's come into English. (Words that came through Spanish
have generally lost the -l indication, e.g. tomato.)
Note also the spelling-pronunciation with /ks/ instead of /S/,
thanks to Spanish orthography.

FWIW, the "-tl" ending seems to be unvoiced in the modern language,

You mean modern Spanish, I guess, not modern Nahuan languages. I
learned Nahuatl "tl" as an unvoiced sound.

Post by CDB
and
is sometimes reduced to [k], as in "Chapultepec" (Grasshopper Hill, from
"chapulín" + "tepetl"). Around 1960, I heard that name pronounced by
Mexicans in Mexico City with a glottal stop in place of the final
consonants.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Quinn C

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels

The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl
[aːˈʃoːloːtɬ] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl

Now that everyone's had their fun, the Wikip transcription (or your
reprint) is faulty: the closing voiceless lateral should be
superscript, indicating that the final phoneme (which happens to be
the Nahua definite article) is an affricate, not a consonant
sequence.
As for the spelling, English is quite hospitable to the spellings in
the source language, and presumably when Aztec scribes learned to
write their language with the Spanish alphabet, they felt no need to
insert a vowel letter inside or adjacent to an affricated phoneme, so
that's how it's come into English. (Words that came through Spanish
have generally lost the -l indication, e.g. tomato.)
Note also the spelling-pronunciation with /ks/ instead of /S/,
thanks to Spanish orthography.

FWIW, the "-tl" ending seems to be unvoiced in the modern language,

You mean modern Spanish, I guess, not modern Nahuan languages. I
learned Nahuatl "tl" as an unvoiced sound.

I don't think he meant "voiceless," but 'unspoken'.

Post by Quinn C

Post by CDB
and
is sometimes reduced to [k], as in "Chapultepec" (Grasshopper Hill, from
"chapulín" + "tepetl"). Around 1960, I heard that name pronounced by
Mexicans in Mexico City with a glottal stop in place of the final
consonants.

[CDB]

Post by Quinn C

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels

The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl
[aːˈʃoːloːtɬ] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl

Now that everyone's had their fun, the Wikip transcription (or
your reprint) is faulty: the closing voiceless lateral should be
superscript, indicating that the final phoneme (which happens to
be the Nahua definite article) is an affricate, not a consonant
sequence.
As for the spelling, English is quite hospitable to the spellings
in the source language, and presumably when Aztec scribes learned
to write their language with the Spanish alphabet, they felt no
need to insert a vowel letter inside or adjacent to an affricated
phoneme, so that's how it's come into English. (Words that came
through Spanish have generally lost the -l indication, e.g.
tomato.)
Note also the spelling-pronunciation with /ks/ instead of /S/,
thanks to Spanish orthography.

FWIW, the "-tl" ending seems to be unvoiced in the modern
language,

You mean modern Spanish, I guess, not modern Nahuan languages. I
learned Nahuatl "tl" as an unvoiced sound.

Modern Nahuatl. It's the only kind I know even a little bit about at
first hand.

Saying that about Spanish would present an anomaly, since Spanish
usually makes "-tl" into "-te", which argues that at the time of first
contact the "l" was silent too. It seems to disappear entirely in some
compounds, presumably made by Native speakers: I was told that
"jitomate" (our regular kind) is a compound of "xitl", navel, and "tomatl".

Post by Quinn C

Post by CDB
and is sometimes reduced to [k], as in "Chapultepec" (Grasshopper
Hill, from "chapulín" + "tepetl"). Around 1960, I heard that name
pronounced by Mexicans in Mexico City with a glottal stop in place
of the final consonants.

I didn't ask them if they spoke Nahuatl, but we were in Tenochtitlan
(one) and Teotihuacan (the other), and it was clear that they were Indians.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by CDB

Post by Quinn C

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels

The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl
[aːˈʃoːloːtɬ] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl

Now that everyone's had their fun, the Wikip transcription (or
your reprint) is faulty: the closing voiceless lateral should be
superscript, indicating that the final phoneme (which happens to
be the Nahua definite article) is an affricate, not a consonant sequence.
As for the spelling, English is quite hospitable to the spellings
in the source language, and presumably when Aztec scribes learned
to write their language with the Spanish alphabet, they felt no
need to insert a vowel letter inside or adjacent to an affricated
phoneme, so that's how it's come into English. (Words that came
through Spanish have generally lost the -l indication, e.g.
tomato.)
Note also the spelling-pronunciation with /ks/ instead of /S/, thanks
to Spanish orthography.

FWIW, the "-tl" ending seems to be unvoiced in the modern
language,

You mean modern Spanish, I guess, not modern Nahuan languages. I
learned Nahuatl "tl" as an unvoiced sound.

Modern Nahuatl. It's the only kind I know even a little bit about at
first hand.
Saying that about Spanish would present an anomaly, since Spanish
usually makes "-tl" into "-te", which argues that at the time of first
contact the "l" was silent too. It seems to disappear entirely in some
compounds, presumably made by Native speakers: I was told that
"jitomate" (our regular kind) is a compound of "xitl", navel, and "tomatl".

Post by Quinn C

Post by CDB
and is sometimes reduced to [k], as in "Chapultepec" (Grasshopper
Hill, from "chapulín" + "tepetl"). Around 1960, I heard that name
pronounced by Mexicans in Mexico City with a glottal stop in place
of the final consonants.

I didn't ask them if they spoke Nahuatl, but we were in Tenochtitlan
(one) and Teotihuacan (the other), and it was clear that they were Indians.

When we visited the Great Pyramid of Cholula, Puebla, there were
information panels in Spanish, English and Nahuatl. I was quite
surprised when a young Japanese couple asked me if the Nahuatl was
French.

[Quinn C]

Post by CDB

Post by Quinn C

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels

The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl
[aːˈʃoːloːtɬ] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl

Now that everyone's had their fun, the Wikip transcription (or
your reprint) is faulty: the closing voiceless lateral should be
superscript, indicating that the final phoneme (which happens to
be the Nahua definite article) is an affricate, not a consonant
sequence.
As for the spelling, English is quite hospitable to the spellings
in the source language, and presumably when Aztec scribes learned
to write their language with the Spanish alphabet, they felt no
need to insert a vowel letter inside or adjacent to an affricated
phoneme, so that's how it's come into English. (Words that came
through Spanish have generally lost the -l indication, e.g.
tomato.)
Note also the spelling-pronunciation with /ks/ instead of /S/,
thanks to Spanish orthography.

FWIW, the "-tl" ending seems to be unvoiced in the modern
language,

You mean modern Spanish, I guess, not modern Nahuan languages. I
learned Nahuatl "tl" as an unvoiced sound.

Modern Nahuatl. It's the only kind I know even a little bit about at
first hand.
Saying that about Spanish would present an anomaly, since Spanish
usually makes "-tl" into "-te", which argues that at the time of first
contact the "l" was silent too.

Could be, doesn't have to. But more importantly, some Spanish words,
especially place names, are written with -tl, and they must have some
pronunciation. Popocatepetl and so on. That's what I thought you might
be talking about.

Post by CDB
It seems to disappear entirely in some
compounds, presumably made by Native speakers: I was told that
"jitomate" (our regular kind) is a compound of "xitl", navel, and "tomatl".

IIRC, it's regular that the -tl (or in other nouns, -li) ending is
dropped in the first part of a compound. For example, Acapulco is acatl
+ pulli + -co.

Wikipedia tells me that in some dialects of modern Nahua languages, -tl
has become -t or -l.

[Dingbat]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Dingbat
AFAIK, axolotl has a syllabic l. That
a syllabic l is hard to describe to
the average Anglo could be why these
descriptions show a vowel before l.
The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from
Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl [aːˈʃoːloːtɬ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl

Now that everyone's had their fun, the Wikip transcription (or your
reprint) is faulty: the closing voiceless lateral should be superscript,
indicating that the final phoneme (which happens to be the Nahua
definite article) is an affricate, not a consonant sequence.

<tl> is how the unvoiced lateral fricative is spelled in Zulu.
A certain affricate in English is written as [tS] but [tS]
could be a consonant sequence too. AFAIK, the two possibilities
are not distinguished by making the S a superscript in the
case of [tS] meaning an affricate.

FWIW, in Zulu, <tl> means a voiceless lateral fricative, not
an affricate. I can't imagine the sound of an affricate [tɬ]
(I don't know how to superscript the ɬ in a Usenet posting).
I could use a recording.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
As for the spelling, English is quite hospitable to the spellings in the
source language, and presumably when Aztec scribes learned to write their
language with the Spanish alphabet, they felt no need to insert a vowel
letter inside or adjacent to an affricated phoneme, so that's how it's
come into English. (Words that came through Spanish have generally lost
the -l indication, e.g. tomato.)
Note also the spelling-pronunciation with /ks/ instead of /S/, thanks
to Spanish orthography.

[Dingbat]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Dingbat
AFAIK, axolotl has a syllabic l. That
a syllabic l is hard to describe to
the average Anglo could be why these
descriptions show a vowel before l.
The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from
Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl [aːˈʃoːloːtɬ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl

Now that everyone's had their fun, the Wikip transcription (or your
reprint) is faulty: the closing voiceless lateral should be superscript
(to show it's an affricate, not a consonant sequence);

A certain affricate in English is variously transcribed as [tS]. To
specify that it's not a consonant sequence, one would put a convex
curve over [tS], not superscript the S.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
the final phoneme happens to be the Nahua definite article)

If so, an absolutive must serve the purpose of noun+definite article.
<tl> is an absolutive suffix, says this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahuatl
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/absolutive

Post by Peter T. Daniels
As for the spelling, English is quite hospitable to the spellings in the
source language, and presumably when Aztec scribes learned to write their
language with the Spanish alphabet, they felt no need to insert a vowel
letter inside or adjacent to an affricated phoneme, so that's how it's
come into English. (Words that came through Spanish have generally lost
the -l indication, e.g. tomato.)

If <tl> is an absolutive suffix, couldn't tomat* have been used without
the <tl> suffix in a non-absolutive (such as ergative) case?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Note also the spelling-pronunciation with /ks/ instead of /S/, thanks
to Spanish orthography.

No Hispanic pronounces it as [S] in <Mexico> though. Also, Hispanics
have been known to pronounce a lateral affricate, says this:
<Xóchitl> is pronounced as [ˈso̞t͡ʃit͡ɬ]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolar_lateral_affricate

FWIW, in Zulu, <tl> supposedly means a voiceless lateral fricative
like <ll> in Welsh. I'm unacquainted with such sounds, so I don't know
whether I'd be able to tell apart a lateral fricative [ɬ] and lateral
affricate [t͡ɬ].  

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Dingbat

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Dingbat
AFAIK, axolotl has a syllabic l. That
a syllabic l is hard to describe to
the average Anglo could be why these
descriptions show a vowel before l.
The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from
Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl [aːˈʃoːloːtɬ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl

Now that everyone's had their fun, the Wikip transcription (or your
reprint) is faulty: the closing voiceless lateral should be superscript
(to show it's an affricate, not a consonant sequence);

A certain affricate in English is variously transcribed as [tS]. To
specify that it's not a consonant sequence, one would put a convex
curve over [tS], not superscript the S.

Wikip uses strict IPA, and I should have said affricated release, not
affricate. The IPA's recent change from unit graphs for the affricates
to two-letters-with-arc was a terrible decision.

Post by Dingbat

Post by Peter T. Daniels
the final phoneme happens to be the Nahua definite article)

If so, an absolutive must serve the purpose of noun+definite article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahuatl
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/absolutive

Post by Peter T. Daniels
As for the spelling, English is quite hospitable to the spellings in the
source language, and presumably when Aztec scribes learned to write their
language with the Spanish alphabet, they felt no need to insert a vowel
letter inside or adjacent to an affricated phoneme, so that's how it's
come into English. (Words that came through Spanish have generally lost
the -l indication, e.g. tomato.)

(see? affricated)

Post by Dingbat
If <tl> is an absolutive suffix, couldn't tomat* have been used without
the <tl> suffix in a non-absolutive (such as ergative) case?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Note also the spelling-pronunciation with /ks/ instead of /S/, thanks
to Spanish orthography.

No Hispanic pronounces it as [S] in <Mexico> though. Also, Hispanics
<Xóchitl> is pronounced as [ˈso̞t͡ʃit͡ɬ]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolar_lateral_affricate
FWIW, in Zulu, <tl> supposedly means a voiceless lateral fricative
like <ll> in Welsh. I'm unacquainted with such sounds, so I don't know
whether I'd be able to tell apart a lateral fricative [ɬ] and lateral
affricate [t͡ɬ].  

As usual, your interpretations are poisoned by your Malayalam-language
instincts. Each language must be taken on its own terms.

[Dingbat]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Dingbat

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Dingbat
AFAIK, axolotl has a syllabic l. That
a syllabic l is hard to describe to
the average Anglo could be why these
descriptions show a vowel before l.
The axolotl (/ˈæksəlɒtəl/, from
Classical Nahuatl: āxōlōtl [aːˈʃoːloːtɬ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl

Now that everyone's had their fun, the Wikip transcription (or your
reprint) is faulty: the closing voiceless lateral should be
superscript (to show it's an affricate, not a consonant sequence);

A certain affricate in English is variously transcribed as [tS]. To
specify that it's not a consonant sequence, one would put a convex
curve over [tS], not superscript the S.

Wikip uses strict IPA, and I should have said affricated release, not
affricate. The IPA's recent change from unit graphs for the affricates
to two-letters-with-arc was a terrible decision.

I'm unfamiliar with the distinction between an affricate and an affricated
release. I can't imagine how different "itch" would sound if it ended
with an affricated release rather than an affricate. Be that as it may,
what is terrible about a digraph with a combining arc? How would [t͡Sʰ]
be re-transcribed without the digraph tS?

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Dingbat

Post by Peter T. Daniels
the final phoneme happens to be the Nahua definite article)

If so, an absolutive must serve the purpose of noun+definite article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahuatl
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/absolutive

Post by Peter T. Daniels
As for the spelling, English is quite hospitable to the spellings in
the source language, and presumably when Aztec scribes learned to
write their language with the Spanish alphabet, they felt no need to
insert a vowel letter inside or adjacent to an affricated phoneme,
so that's how it's come into English. (Words that came through
Spanish have generally lost the -l indication, e.g. tomato.)

(see? affricated)

Post by Dingbat
If <tl> is an absolutive suffix, couldn't toma* have been used without
the <tl> suffix in a non-absolutive (such as ergative) case?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Note also the spelling-pronunciation with /ks/ instead of /S/, thanks
to Spanish orthography.

No Hispanic pronounces it as [S] in <Mexico> though. Also, Hispanics
<Xóchitl> is pronounced as [ˈso̞t͡ʃit͡ɬ]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolar_lateral_affricate
FWIW, in Zulu, <tl> supposedly means a voiceless lateral fricative
like <ll> in Welsh. I'm unacquainted with such sounds, so I don't know
whether I'd be able to tell apart a lateral fricative [ɬ] and lateral
affricate [t͡ɬ].  

As usual, your interpretations are poisoned by your Malayalam-language
instincts. Each language must be taken on its own terms.

Where do you detect an influence from Malayalam in my posting?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Dingbat

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Dingbat

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Now that everyone's had their fun, the Wikip transcription (or your
reprint) is faulty: the closing voiceless lateral should be
superscript (to show it's an affricate, not a consonant sequence);

A certain affricate in English is variously transcribed as [tS]. To
specify that it's not a consonant sequence, one would put a convex
curve over [tS], not superscript the S.

Wikip uses strict IPA, and I should have said affricated release, not
affricate. The IPA's recent change from unit graphs for the affricates
to two-letters-with-arc was a terrible decision.

I'm unfamiliar with the distinction between an affricate and an affricated
release. I can't imagine how different "itch" would sound if it ended
with an affricated release rather than an affricate. Be that as it may,
what is terrible about a digraph with a combining arc? How would [t͡Sʰ]
be re-transcribed without the digraph tS?

With the IPA symbol [ʧʰ], of course. It's part of the series [ʣ ʤ ʥ ʦ ʧ ʨ].

(Why did you use the special character for aspiration but not the special
character for the "sh" sound?)

Post by Dingbat

Post by Peter T. Daniels
As usual, your interpretations are poisoned by your Malayalam-language
instincts. Each language must be taken on its own terms.

Where do you detect an influence from Malayalam in my posting?

You are sensitive to phonetic distinctions that are phonemic in your
language but not in the languages you're talking about, and you seem
to miss phonetic distinctions that are phonemic in those languages
but not in yours.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an adjacent
vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a couple
of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

...

I think I have a schwa in those words.

How about "m" in "rhythm" and the "-ism" etc. words?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an
adjacent vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

...

When I say the "dl" in "dreidl", the tip of my tongue stays anchored to
the roof of my mouth, just behind the teeth, while the sides of the
tongue drop down to perform the dual function of saying "l" while
releasing the "d". No schwa.

The same is true for words like "paddle" and "candle".

Post by Jerry Friedman
I think I have a schwa in those words.
How about "m" in "rhythm" and the "-ism" etc. words?

I might have a schwa in those words, but if so it's so short that it's
hard to tell.

Irish Gaelic definitely inserts a schwa between some adjacent
consonants, and this has influenced Irish English to the point of giving
it words like "fillum". My own speech doesn't work that way, though.

[Ross]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an
adjacent vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

...

When I say the "dl" in "dreidl", the tip of my tongue stays anchored to
the roof of my mouth, just behind the teeth, while the sides of the
tongue drop down to perform the dual function of saying "l" while
releasing the "d". No schwa.
The same is true for words like "paddle" and "candle".

Post by Jerry Friedman
I think I have a schwa in those words.
How about "m" in "rhythm" and the "-ism" etc. words?

I might have a schwa in those words, but if so it's so short that it's
hard to tell.
Irish Gaelic definitely inserts a schwa between some adjacent
consonants, and this has influenced Irish English to the point of giving
it words like "fillum". My own speech doesn't work that way, though.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

There is a real difference between these two types. When the syllabic
has the same position of articulation as the preceding consonant, it
is _possible_ to shift directly from one to the other without a vowel
intervening. You can do this with -dl (dreidl, paddle, etc), and probably
also with -tn (cotton, frighten). But if the positions are different
(rubble, giggle, bacon, open), just getting from one to the other there
will be an intervening phase when neither articulation is closed and
voice continues without friction or stoppage. That's a vowel, whether
we notice it or not, even if we can't put a name (phonetic symbol) to it.

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Ross
the same position of articulation

aka "homorganic"

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Ross

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an
adjacent vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

...

When I say the "dl" in "dreidl", the tip of my tongue stays anchored to
the roof of my mouth, just behind the teeth, while the sides of the
tongue drop down to perform the dual function of saying "l" while
releasing the "d". No schwa.
The same is true for words like "paddle" and "candle".

Post by Jerry Friedman
I think I have a schwa in those words.
How about "m" in "rhythm" and the "-ism" etc. words?

I might have a schwa in those words, but if so it's so short that it's
hard to tell.
Irish Gaelic definitely inserts a schwa between some adjacent
consonants, and this has influenced Irish English to the point of giving
it words like "fillum". My own speech doesn't work that way, though.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

There is a real difference between these two types. When the syllabic
has the same position of articulation as the preceding consonant, it
is _possible_ to shift directly from one to the other without a vowel
intervening. You can do this with -dl (dreidl, paddle, etc),

I guess I can if I do the [l] in a way that's strange to me.

Post by Ross
and probably also with -tn (cotton, frighten).

But I normally do that one and -dn (hidden, sadden).

Post by Ross
But if the positions are different
(rubble, giggle, bacon, open), just getting from one to the other there
will be an intervening phase when neither articulation is closed and
voice continues without friction or stoppage. That's a vowel, whether
we notice it or not, even if we can't put a name (phonetic symbol) to it.

Is that true when one of the sounds is labial? It seems to me that in
"rubble" I can put my tongue into position for the [l] while I'm saying
the [b]. It's easier in "rumble". However, I don't think I normally do
that.

And what about consecutive nasals? I'm pretty sure I don't have a schwa
between the [m] and [n] in "hymnal" or "damnation".

[Ross]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an
adjacent vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

...

When I say the "dl" in "dreidl", the tip of my tongue stays anchored to
the roof of my mouth, just behind the teeth, while the sides of the
tongue drop down to perform the dual function of saying "l" while
releasing the "d". No schwa.
The same is true for words like "paddle" and "candle".

Post by Jerry Friedman
I think I have a schwa in those words.
How about "m" in "rhythm" and the "-ism" etc. words?

I might have a schwa in those words, but if so it's so short that it's
hard to tell.
Irish Gaelic definitely inserts a schwa between some adjacent
consonants, and this has influenced Irish English to the point of giving
it words like "fillum". My own speech doesn't work that way, though.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

There is a real difference between these two types. When the syllabic
has the same position of articulation as the preceding consonant, it
is _possible_ to shift directly from one to the other without a vowel
intervening. You can do this with -dl (dreidl, paddle, etc),

I guess I can if I do the [l] in a way that's strange to me.

Post by Ross
and probably also with -tn (cotton, frighten).

But I normally do that one and -dn (hidden, sadden).

Post by Ross
But if the positions are different
(rubble, giggle, bacon, open), just getting from one to the other there
will be an intervening phase when neither articulation is closed and
voice continues without friction or stoppage. That's a vowel, whether
we notice it or not, even if we can't put a name (phonetic symbol) to it.

Is that true when one of the sounds is labial? It seems to me that in
"rubble" I can put my tongue into position for the [l] while I'm saying
the [b]. It's easier in "rumble". However, I don't think I normally do
that.

I agree that's possible. I was going to add some qualification about
how the vowel will appear provided you complete (release) the first
sound before going on to the next.

Post by Jerry Friedman
And what about consecutive nasals? I'm pretty sure I don't have a schwa
between the [m] and [n] in "hymnal" or "damnation".

I was considering only cases where the second consonant is syllabic
(e.g. in "seminal" or "contamination"). I think in your examples you
would be doing the pre-positioning you described above.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Ross

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an
adjacent vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

...

When I say the "dl" in "dreidl", the tip of my tongue stays anchored to
the roof of my mouth, just behind the teeth, while the sides of the
tongue drop down to perform the dual function of saying "l" while
releasing the "d". No schwa.
The same is true for words like "paddle" and "candle".

Post by Jerry Friedman
I think I have a schwa in those words.
How about "m" in "rhythm" and the "-ism" etc. words?

I might have a schwa in those words, but if so it's so short that it's
hard to tell.
Irish Gaelic definitely inserts a schwa between some adjacent
consonants, and this has influenced Irish English to the point of giving
it words like "fillum". My own speech doesn't work that way, though.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

There is a real difference between these two types. When the syllabic
has the same position of articulation as the preceding consonant, it
is _possible_ to shift directly from one to the other without a vowel
intervening. You can do this with -dl (dreidl, paddle, etc),

I guess I can if I do the [l] in a way that's strange to me.

Post by Ross
and probably also with -tn (cotton, frighten).

But I normally do that one and -dn (hidden, sadden).

Post by Ross
But if the positions are different
(rubble, giggle, bacon, open), just getting from one to the other there
will be an intervening phase when neither articulation is closed and
voice continues without friction or stoppage. That's a vowel, whether
we notice it or not, even if we can't put a name (phonetic symbol) to it.

Is that true when one of the sounds is labial? It seems to me that in
"rubble" I can put my tongue into position for the [l] while I'm saying
the [b]. It's easier in "rumble". However, I don't think I normally do
that.

I agree that's possible. I was going to add some qualification about
how the vowel will appear provided you complete (release) the first
sound before going on to the next.

Thanks.

Post by Ross

Post by Jerry Friedman
And what about consecutive nasals? I'm pretty sure I don't have a schwa
between the [m] and [n] in "hymnal" or "damnation".

I was considering only cases where the second consonant is syllabic
(e.g. in "seminal" or "contamination").

Ah, so you were.

I think I could say those words or "woman" with a syllabic [n], but I
don't; I put a schwa in there. I believe.

Post by Ross
I think in your examples you
would be doing the pre-positioning you described above.

Yep.

[Dingbat]

Post by Ross

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an
adjacent vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

...

When I say the "dl" in "dreidl", the tip of my tongue stays anchored to
the roof of my mouth, just behind the teeth, while the sides of the
tongue drop down to perform the dual function of saying "l" while
releasing the "d". No schwa.
The same is true for words like "paddle" and "candle".

Post by Jerry Friedman
I think I have a schwa in those words.
How about "m" in "rhythm" and the "-ism" etc. words?

I might have a schwa in those words, but if so it's so short that it's
hard to tell.
Irish Gaelic definitely inserts a schwa between some adjacent
consonants, and this has influenced Irish English to the point of giving
it words like "fillum". My own speech doesn't work that way, though.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

There is a real difference between these two types. When the syllabic
has the same position of articulation as the preceding consonant, it
is _possible_ to shift directly from one to the other without a vowel
intervening. You can do this with -dl (dreidl, paddle, etc),

I guess I can if I do the [l] in a way that's strange to me.

Post by Ross
and probably also with -tn (cotton, frighten).

But I normally do that one and -dn (hidden, sadden).

Post by Ross
But if the positions are different
(rubble, giggle, bacon, open), just getting from one to the other there
will be an intervening phase when neither articulation is closed and
voice continues without friction or stoppage. That's a vowel, whether
we notice it or not, even if we can't put a name (phonetic symbol) to it.

Is that true when one of the sounds is labial? It seems to me that in
"rubble" I can put my tongue into position for the [l] while I'm saying
the [b]. It's easier in "rumble". However, I don't think I normally do
that.

I agree that's possible. I was going to add some qualification about
how the vowel will appear provided you complete (release) the first
sound before going on to the next.

Post by Jerry Friedman
And what about consecutive nasals? I'm pretty sure I don't have a schwa
between the [m] and [n] in "hymnal" or "damnation".

I was considering only cases where the second consonant is syllabic
(e.g. in "seminal" or "contamination"). I think in your examples you
would be doing the pre-positioning you described above.

FWIW, Sanskrit /klp/ was one syllable despite the transcription appearing
to suggest 3 points of articulation. I rhyme it with US English <gulp>
if/when I have occasion to demonstrate how it could've been pronounced.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Dingbat

Post by Ross

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an
adjacent vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

...

When I say the "dl" in "dreidl", the tip of my tongue stays anchored to
the roof of my mouth, just behind the teeth, while the sides of the
tongue drop down to perform the dual function of saying "l" while
releasing the "d". No schwa.
The same is true for words like "paddle" and "candle".

Post by Jerry Friedman
I think I have a schwa in those words.
How about "m" in "rhythm" and the "-ism" etc. words?

I might have a schwa in those words, but if so it's so short that it's
hard to tell.
Irish Gaelic definitely inserts a schwa between some adjacent
consonants, and this has influenced Irish English to the point of giving
it words like "fillum". My own speech doesn't work that way, though.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

There is a real difference between these two types. When the syllabic
has the same position of articulation as the preceding consonant, it
is _possible_ to shift directly from one to the other without a vowel
intervening. You can do this with -dl (dreidl, paddle, etc),

...

Post by Dingbat

Post by Ross

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
But if the positions are different
(rubble, giggle, bacon, open), just getting from one to the other there
will be an intervening phase when neither articulation is closed and
voice continues without friction or stoppage. That's a vowel, whether
we notice it or not, even if we can't put a name (phonetic symbol) to it.

Is that true when one of the sounds is labial? It seems to me that in
"rubble" I can put my tongue into position for the [l] while I'm saying
the [b]. It's easier in "rumble". However, I don't think I normally do
that.

I agree that's possible. I was going to add some qualification about
how the vowel will appear provided you complete (release) the first
sound before going on to the next.

Post by Jerry Friedman
And what about consecutive nasals? I'm pretty sure I don't have a schwa
between the [m] and [n] in "hymnal" or "damnation".

I was considering only cases where the second consonant is syllabic
(e.g. in "seminal" or "contamination"). I think in your examples you
would be doing the pre-positioning you described above.

FWIW, Sanskrit /klp/ was one syllable despite the transcription appearing
to suggest 3 points of articulation. I rhyme it with US English <gulp>
if/when I have occasion to demonstrate how it could've been pronounced.

I can say that with a syllabic [l] and no vowel by pre-positioning.
I have no idea whether the ancient Sanskrit speakers did anything
like that.

(Speaking of syllabic consonants, was "Sanskrit" originally
pronounced with a syllabic [r]? Wikipedia says yes,
"saṃskṛtam".)

[Dingbat]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat

Post by Ross

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an
adjacent vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

...

When I say the "dl" in "dreidl", the tip of my tongue stays anchored to
the roof of my mouth, just behind the teeth, while the sides of the
tongue drop down to perform the dual function of saying "l" while
releasing the "d". No schwa.
The same is true for words like "paddle" and "candle".

Post by Jerry Friedman
I think I have a schwa in those words.
How about "m" in "rhythm" and the "-ism" etc. words?

I might have a schwa in those words, but if so it's so short that it's
hard to tell.
Irish Gaelic definitely inserts a schwa between some adjacent
consonants, and this has influenced Irish English to the point of giving
it words like "fillum". My own speech doesn't work that way, though.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

There is a real difference between these two types. When the syllabic
has the same position of articulation as the preceding consonant, it
is _possible_ to shift directly from one to the other without a vowel
intervening. You can do this with -dl (dreidl, paddle, etc),

...

Post by Dingbat

Post by Ross

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
But if the positions are different
(rubble, giggle, bacon, open), just getting from one to the other there
will be an intervening phase when neither articulation is closed and
voice continues without friction or stoppage. That's a vowel, whether
we notice it or not, even if we can't put a name (phonetic symbol) to it.

Is that true when one of the sounds is labial? It seems to me that in
"rubble" I can put my tongue into position for the [l] while I'm saying
the [b]. It's easier in "rumble". However, I don't think I normally do
that.

I agree that's possible. I was going to add some qualification about
how the vowel will appear provided you complete (release) the first
sound before going on to the next.

Post by Jerry Friedman
And what about consecutive nasals? I'm pretty sure I don't have a schwa
between the [m] and [n] in "hymnal" or "damnation".

I was considering only cases where the second consonant is syllabic
(e.g. in "seminal" or "contamination"). I think in your examples you
would be doing the pre-positioning you described above.

FWIW, Sanskrit /klp/ was one syllable despite the transcription
appearing to suggest 3 points of articulation. I rhyme it with US
English <gulp> if/when I have occasion to demonstrate how it
could've been pronounced.

I can say that with a syllabic [l] and no vowel by pre-positioning.
I have no idea whether the ancient Sanskrit speakers did anything
like that.

Nobody seems to know exactly how syllabic l was realized; /klp/ has
not survived in daughter languages.

Post by Jerry Friedman
(Speaking of syllabic consonants, was "Sanskrit" originally
pronounced with a syllabic [r]? Wikipedia says yes,
"saṃskṛtam".)

Current:
My realization has [rʏ] and [rɪ] in complementary distribution.
Pandits bilingual in Hindi and Sanskrit have [rɪ].

Past:
It might have had allophones - more than one of these:
Syllabic [r̩], vocalic [ʏ], vocalic [ɪ], [rʏ], [rɪ], judging
by its reflexes in descendants of OIA.

My datum for its having had a vocalic allophone is
that Sanskrit /srngavera/ corresponds to Tamil [iɲɟiʋeːr],
i.e., that Sanskrit /r/ corresponds to [i], the 1st vowel
in the Tamil word.

[Madhu]

Post by Jerry Friedman
(Speaking of syllabic consonants, was "Sanskrit" originally
pronounced with a syllabic [r]? Wikipedia says yes, "saṃskṛtam".)

Current: My realization has [rʏ] and [rɪ] in complementary
distribution. Pandits bilingual in Hindi and Sanskrit have [rɪ].
Past: It might have had allophones - more than one of these: Syllabic
[r̩], vocalic [ʏ], vocalic [ɪ], [rʏ], [rɪ], judging by its reflexes in
descendants of OIA.
My datum for its having had a vocalic allophone is
that Sanskrit /srngavera/ corresponds to Tamil [iɲɟiʋeːr],

I'm still dubious about what that correspondence means - In any case

i.e., that Sanskrit /r/ corresponds to [i], the 1st vowel
in the Tamil word.

this does not follow

[Dingbat]

Post by Madhu

Post by Jerry Friedman
(Speaking of syllabic consonants, was "Sanskrit" originally
pronounced with a syllabic [r]? Wikipedia says yes, "saṃskṛtam".)

Current: My realization has [rʏ] and [rɪ] in complementary
distribution. Pandits bilingual in Hindi and Sanskrit have [rɪ].
Past: It might have had allophones - more than one of these: Syllabic
[r̩], vocalic [ʏ], vocalic [ɪ], [rʏ], [rɪ], judging by its reflexes in
descendants of OIA.
My datum for its having had a vocalic allophone is
that Sanskrit /srngavera/ corresponds to Tamil [iɲɟiʋeːr],

I'm still dubious about what that correspondence means - In any case

i.e., that Sanskrit /r/ corresponds to [i], the 1st vowel
in the Tamil word.

this does not follow

Well, I have an alternate hypothesis of morpheme replacement rather than
sound change. Revising my posting from way back when:


The Sanskrit word is srngavera (nominative) or srngaveram (accusative).
Etymological dictionaries say srnga is related to Latin cornu and
English horn. The OED says about "horn":

"cognate with Latin cornu, Celtic corn 'horn': in ablaut relation with
Greek κέρας, κερατ-; compare also Sanskrit çṛṅga 'horn'."

As for why the Sanskrit word has srnga and not (s)inji, perhaps an ancient
pandit changed it to a Sanskrit word by getting rid of morpheme (s)inji
and replacing it with the somewhat similar morpheme srnga. An example of
an analysis showing/ claiming that a Sanskrit scholar changed a word
by changing one of its morphemes:

To explain why a Sanskrit word for spider has two spellings ulnavabhi and
ulnanabhi in Sanskrit texts (ulna meaning wool and related to the English
word wool), an IndoEuropean scholar compared it with terms in other
IndoEuropean languages. He deduced that ulnanabhi was devised by an
ancient Sanskrit pandit who presumed incorrectly that the word is
intended to mean "wooly navel" or producing wool from its navel, nabh
meaning navel. The IE scholar's analysis showed that ulnavabhi is the
original word meaning wool weaver (vabhi is related to the English word
weaver), a spider being called a wool weaver because it weaves cobwebs.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/6oSkbCz3yiM/vCsir9udAwAJ

[Dingbat]

Post by Ross

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an
adjacent vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

...

When I say the "dl" in "dreidl", the tip of my tongue stays anchored to
the roof of my mouth, just behind the teeth, while the sides of the
tongue drop down to perform the dual function of saying "l" while
releasing the "d". No schwa.
The same is true for words like "paddle" and "candle".

Post by Jerry Friedman
I think I have a schwa in those words.
How about "m" in "rhythm" and the "-ism" etc. words?

I might have a schwa in those words, but if so it's so short that it's
hard to tell.
Irish Gaelic definitely inserts a schwa between some adjacent
consonants, and this has influenced Irish English to the point of giving
it words like "fillum". My own speech doesn't work that way, though.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

There is a real difference between these two types. When the syllabic
has the same position of articulation as the preceding consonant, it
is _possible_ to shift directly from one to the other without a vowel
intervening. You can do this with -dl (dreidl, paddle, etc), and probably
also with -tn (cotton, frighten). But if the positions are different
(rubble, giggle, bacon, open), just getting from one to the other there
will be an intervening phase when neither articulation is closed and
voice continues without friction or stoppage. That's a vowel, whether
we notice it or not, even if we can't put a name (phonetic symbol) to it.

Polish consonant clusters have releases between consonants
that Polish phoneticians tend not to call vowels. But releases
don't seem essential in the examples you provide.

Consonants with two points of articulation can often coarticulated.
[ks] (English <x>) doesn't have a vowel. [kn], by having the same
two points of articulation, shouldn't need a vowel. Realizing <gl>
as [gʟ] gives a single point of articulation. [bʟ] and [pn] seem
possible to coarticulate since they can concurrently use different
articulators, the articulators being
[bʟ]: lips and tongue body (or tongue root if <l> is very dark).
[pn]: lips and tongue tip.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Dingbat

Post by Ross

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an
adjacent vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

...

When I say the "dl" in "dreidl", the tip of my tongue stays anchored to
the roof of my mouth, just behind the teeth, while the sides of the
tongue drop down to perform the dual function of saying "l" while
releasing the "d". No schwa.
The same is true for words like "paddle" and "candle".

Post by Jerry Friedman
I think I have a schwa in those words.
How about "m" in "rhythm" and the "-ism" etc. words?

I might have a schwa in those words, but if so it's so short that it's
hard to tell.
Irish Gaelic definitely inserts a schwa between some adjacent
consonants, and this has influenced Irish English to the point of giving
it words like "fillum". My own speech doesn't work that way, though.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

There is a real difference between these two types. When the syllabic
has the same position of articulation as the preceding consonant, it
is _possible_ to shift directly from one to the other without a vowel
intervening. You can do this with -dl (dreidl, paddle, etc), and
probably> also with -tn (cotton, frighten). But if the positions are
different
(rubble, giggle, bacon, open), just getting from one to the other
there> will be an intervening phase when neither articulation is closed
and
voice continues without friction or stoppage. That's a vowel, whether
we notice it or not, even if we can't put a name (phonetic symbol) to it.

Polish consonant clusters have releases between consonants
that Polish phoneticians tend not to call vowels. But releases
don't seem essential in the examples you provide.

I think that's how it works in Georgian. When you see what appear to be
ten successive consonants some of them are separated by "releases".

Post by Dingbat
Consonants with two points of articulation can often coarticulated.
[ks] (English <x>) doesn't have a vowel. [kn], by having the same
two points of articulation, shouldn't need a vowel. Realizing <gl>
as [gʟ] gives a single point of articulation. [bʟ] and [pn] seem
possible to coarticulate since they can concurrently use different
articulators, the articulators being
[bʟ]: lips and tongue body (or tongue root if <l> is very dark).
[pn]: lips and tongue tip.

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Post by Dingbat
Consonants with two points of articulation can often coarticulated.
[ks] (English <x>) doesn't have a vowel.

But won't it usually - always - have the [k] and the [s] in different
syllables?

Post by Dingbat
[kn], by having the same
two points of articulation, shouldn't need a vowel. Realizing <gl>
as [gʟ] gives a single point of articulation. [bʟ] and [pn] seem
possible to coarticulate since they can concurrently use different
articulators, the articulators being
[bʟ]: lips and tongue body (or tongue root if <l> is very dark).
[pn]: lips and tongue tip.

I'm not sure how similar Danish consonants are to English, or what,
exactly you mean by [ʟ] (as distinct from [l]), but all three pairs
("kn", "bl", "pn") appear word-initially in Danish with no trace
of a vowel. "x" (like in en:"xylophone") is pronounced [s] when
at the beginning of a word.

/Anders, Denmark.

[Dingbat]

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Dingbat
Consonants with two points of articulation can often coarticulated.
[ks] (English <x>) doesn't have a vowel.

But won't it usually - always - have the [k] and the [s] in different
syllables?

Post by Dingbat
[kn], by having the same
two points of articulation, shouldn't need a vowel. Realizing <gl>
as [gʟ] gives a single point of articulation. [bʟ] and [pn] seem
possible to coarticulate since they can concurrently use different
articulators, the articulators being
[bʟ]: lips and tongue body (or tongue root if <l> is very dark).
[pn]: lips and tongue tip.

I'm not sure how similar Danish consonants are to English, or what,
exactly you mean by [ʟ] (as distinct from [l]), but all three pairs
("kn", "bl", "pn") appear word-initially in Danish with no trace
of a vowel. "x" (like in en:"xylophone") is pronounced [s] when
at the beginning of a word.

[ʟ] is articulated in a velar position.
Allah has [ʟ] or [ʟ:], a geminate [ʟ], according to didatic instruction.
To my ear, US English /l/ has up to 6 allophones:
[ʟ], [ʎ], [ɫ], [ɭ], [lʲ] & [l], although no one speaker has all 6.
[ʟ] hulking, skulking, for speakers who have 2 dark articulations.
[ʎ] million, some speakers
[ɭ] hold off, some speakers
[ɫ] hold off, other speakers
[lʲ] million, other speakers
[l] least

[Dingbat]

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Dingbat
Consonants with two points of articulation can often coarticulated.
[ks] (English <x>) doesn't have a vowel.

But won't it usually - always - have the [k] and the [s] in different
syllables?

[tɐks] has only one syllable and has 2 spellings: <tux> and <tucks>.

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Dingbat
[kn], by having the same
two points of articulation, shouldn't need a vowel. Realizing <gl>
as [gʟ] gives a single point of articulation. [bʟ] and [pn] seem
possible to coarticulate since they can concurrently use different
articulators, the articulators being
[bʟ]: lips and tongue body (or tongue root if <l> is very dark).
[pn]: lips and tongue tip.

I'm not sure how similar Danish consonants are to English, or what,
exactly you mean by [ʟ] (as distinct from [l]), but all three pairs
("kn", "bl", "pn") appear word-initially in Danish with no trace
of a vowel. "x" (like in en:"xylophone") is pronounced [s] when
at the beginning of a word.
/Anders, Denmark.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Dingbat

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Dingbat
Consonants with two points of articulation can often coarticulated.
[ks] (English <x>) doesn't have a vowel.

But won't it usually - always - have the [k] and the [s] in different
syllables?

[tɐks] has only one syllable and has 2 spellings: <tux> and <tucks>.

Yes, and ...?

[Dingbat]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Dingbat

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Dingbat
Consonants with two points of articulation can often coarticulated.
[ks] (English <x>) doesn't have a vowel.

But won't it usually - always - have the [k] and the [s] in different
syllables?

[tɐks] has only one syllable and has 2 spellings: <tux> and <tucks>.

Yes, and ...?

... thereby, <x> doesn't always have [k] and [s] in different syllables.

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Post by Dingbat

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Dingbat
Consonants with two points of articulation can often coarticulated.
[ks] (English <x>) doesn't have a vowel.

But won't it usually - always - have the [k] and the [s] in different
syllables?

[tɐks] has only one syllable and has 2 spellings: <tux> and <tucks>.

Duh. Thank you.

/Anders, Denmark.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Dingbat
Consonants with two points of articulation can often coarticulated.
[ks] (English <x>) doesn't have a vowel.

But won't it usually - always - have the [k] and the [s] in different
syllables?

What a fix we would be in if that were the case!

(/s/ is problematic for those who study syllable structure [in English
and elsewhere]. They came up with something called the Sonority Hierarchy
that works for languages with very simple syllables but it's defeated by
things like "spl-."

[Dingbat]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an
adjacent vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

...

When I say the "dl" in "dreidl", the tip of my tongue stays anchored to
the roof of my mouth, just behind the teeth, while the sides of the
tongue drop down to perform the dual function of saying "l" while
releasing the "d". No schwa.
The same is true for words like "paddle" and "candle".

Bothell, WA has a syllabic l written as <ell>.

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
I think I have a schwa in those words.
How about "m" in "rhythm" and the "-ism" etc. words?

I might have a schwa in those words, but if so it's so short that it's
hard to tell.
Irish Gaelic definitely inserts a schwa between some adjacent
consonants, and this has influenced Irish English to the point of giving
it words like "fillum". My own speech doesn't work that way, though.

Some Indians say alarum for alarm.
My late aunt said fimm for film.

[Quinn C]

Post by Dingbat

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an
adjacent vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

...

When I say the "dl" in "dreidl", the tip of my tongue stays anchored to
the roof of my mouth, just behind the teeth, while the sides of the
tongue drop down to perform the dual function of saying "l" while
releasing the "d". No schwa.
The same is true for words like "paddle" and "candle".

Bothell, WA has a syllabic l written as <ell>.

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
I think I have a schwa in those words.
How about "m" in "rhythm" and the "-ism" etc. words?

I might have a schwa in those words, but if so it's so short that it's
hard to tell.
Irish Gaelic definitely inserts a schwa between some adjacent
consonants, and this has influenced Irish English to the point of giving
it words like "fillum". My own speech doesn't work that way, though.

Some Indians say alarum for alarm.
My late aunt said fimm for film.

The loanword sounds like "fim" in some languages (e.g. Haitian Creole,
Thai, Vietnamese, Yoruba), and like "fil" in others (Khmer.)

[Ross]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Dingbat

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an
adjacent vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

...

When I say the "dl" in "dreidl", the tip of my tongue stays anchored to
the roof of my mouth, just behind the teeth, while the sides of the
tongue drop down to perform the dual function of saying "l" while
releasing the "d". No schwa.
The same is true for words like "paddle" and "candle".

Bothell, WA has a syllabic l written as <ell>.

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
I think I have a schwa in those words.
How about "m" in "rhythm" and the "-ism" etc. words?

I might have a schwa in those words, but if so it's so short that it's
hard to tell.
Irish Gaelic definitely inserts a schwa between some adjacent
consonants, and this has influenced Irish English to the point of giving
it words like "fillum". My own speech doesn't work that way, though.

Some Indians say alarum for alarm.
My late aunt said fimm for film.

The loanword sounds like "fim" in some languages (e.g. Haitian Creole,
Thai, Vietnamese, Yoruba), and like "fil" in others (Khmer.)
--
It was frequently the fastest way to find what he was looking
for, provided that he was looking for trouble.
-- L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen

The cluster -lm has obviously been problematic for English speakers
as well. In some words (balm, calm, psalm) the /l/ has long since
been dropped. I don't know of any examples where the /m/ has been
lost, but the case of "kiln" (pronounced /kIl/) is similar enough
to be relevant.

The other solution is epenthesis of schwa (or syllabification of /m/
if you wish). I think this can be heard with "film" in all varieties
of English. "Elm" has apparently followed the same path, at least
in Dallas TX:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Ellum,_Dallas

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Post by Ross

Post by Quinn C

Post by Dingbat
My late aunt said fimm for film.

The loanword sounds like "fim" in some languages (e.g. Haitian Creole,
Thai, Vietnamese, Yoruba), and like "fil" in others (Khmer.)
--
It was frequently the fastest way to find what he was looking
for, provided that he was looking for trouble.
-- L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen

The cluster -lm has obviously been problematic for English speakers
as well. In some words (balm, calm, psalm) the /l/ has long since
been dropped.

...

But it's back for a great many Americans. I'm waiting to be told
my pronunciation of "calm" or "palm" is incorrect because it doesn't
have an /l/. (I'll try to be tactful.)

Here in New Mexico one can hear the same person say "wolf" without
an /l/ but "salmon" or "salve" with one. One can also hear me say
"almond" with an /l/, which I think is frowned on in some places.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
The cluster -lm has obviously been problematic for English speakers
as well. In some words (balm, calm, psalm) the /l/ has long since
been dropped.

But it's back for a great many Americans. I'm waiting to be told
my pronunciation of "calm" or "palm" is incorrect because it doesn't
have an /l/. (I'll try to be tactful.)
Here in New Mexico one can hear the same person say "wolf" without
an /l/ but "salmon" or "salve" with one. One can also hear me say
"almond" with an /l/, which I think is frowned on in some places.

Salve has an l, yolk doesn't, Polk is problematic.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
The cluster -lm has obviously been problematic for English speakers
as well. In some words (balm, calm, psalm) the /l/ has long since
been dropped.

But it's back for a great many Americans. I'm waiting to be told
my pronunciation of "calm" or "palm" is incorrect because it doesn't
have an /l/. (I'll try to be tactful.)
Here in New Mexico one can hear the same person say "wolf" without
an /l/ but "salmon" or "salve" with one. One can also hear me say
"almond" with an /l/, which I think is frowned on in some places.

Salve has an l,

Shocking.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
yolk doesn't, Polk is problematic.

So is Palmer.

[RH Draney]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
The cluster -lm has obviously been problematic for English speakers
as well. In some words (balm, calm, psalm) the /l/ has long since
been dropped.

But it's back for a great many Americans. I'm waiting to be told
my pronunciation of "calm" or "palm" is incorrect because it doesn't
have an /l/. (I'll try to be tactful.)
Here in New Mexico one can hear the same person say "wolf" without
an /l/ but "salmon" or "salve" with one. One can also hear me say
"almond" with an /l/, which I think is frowned on in some places.

Salve has an l,

Shocking.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
yolk doesn't, Polk is problematic.

So is Palmer.

And Ralph....r

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
The cluster -lm has obviously been problematic for English speakers
as well. In some words (balm, calm, psalm) the /l/ has long since
been dropped.

But it's back for a great many Americans. I'm waiting to be told
my pronunciation of "calm" or "palm" is incorrect because it doesn't
have an /l/. (I'll try to be tactful.)
Here in New Mexico one can hear the same person say "wolf" without
an /l/ but "salmon" or "salve" with one. One can also hear me say
"almond" with an /l/, which I think is frowned on in some places.

Salve has an l,

Shocking.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
yolk doesn't, Polk is problematic.

So is Palmer.

Nope -- suitable for a Christmas greeting (too soon?).

[Ken Blake]

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Ross

Post by Quinn C

Post by Dingbat
My late aunt said fimm for film.

The loanword sounds like "fim" in some languages (e.g. Haitian Creole,
Thai, Vietnamese, Yoruba), and like "fil" in others (Khmer.)
--
It was frequently the fastest way to find what he was looking
for, provided that he was looking for trouble.
-- L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen

The cluster -lm has obviously been problematic for English speakers
as well. In some words (balm, calm, psalm) the /l/ has long since
been dropped.

...
But it's back for a great many Americans. I'm waiting to be told
my pronunciation of "calm" or "palm" is incorrect because it doesn't
have an /l/. (I'll try to be tactful.)
Here in New Mexico one can hear the same person say "wolf" without
an /l/ but "salmon" or "salve" with one. One can also hear me say
"almond" with an /l/, which I think is frowned on in some places.

There's no l when I say "almond" Does that make it a Christmas almond?

And "often" with a t is common in a lot of the US.

[Ross]

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Ross

Post by Quinn C

Post by Dingbat
My late aunt said fimm for film.

The loanword sounds like "fim" in some languages (e.g. Haitian Creole,
Thai, Vietnamese, Yoruba), and like "fil" in others (Khmer.)
--
It was frequently the fastest way to find what he was looking
for, provided that he was looking for trouble.
-- L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen

The cluster -lm has obviously been problematic for English speakers
as well. In some words (balm, calm, psalm) the /l/ has long since
been dropped.

...
But it's back for a great many Americans. I'm waiting to be told
my pronunciation of "calm" or "palm" is incorrect because it doesn't
have an /l/. (I'll try to be tactful.)
Here in New Mexico one can hear the same person say "wolf" without
an /l/ but "salmon" or "salve" with one. One can also hear me say
"almond" with an /l/, which I think is frowned on in some places.
--
Jerry Friedman

Spelling pronunciation we have always with us.
What about "falcon"?

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Post by Ross

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
The cluster -lm has obviously been problematic for English speakers
as well. In some words (balm, calm, psalm) the /l/ has long since
been dropped.

...
But it's back for a great many Americans. I'm waiting to be told
my pronunciation of "calm" or "palm" is incorrect because it doesn't
have an /l/. (I'll try to be tactful.)
Here in New Mexico one can hear the same person say "wolf" without
an /l/ but "salmon" or "salve" with one. One can also hear me say
"almond" with an /l/, which I think is frowned on in some places.
--
Jerry Friedman

Spelling pronunciation we have always with us.

I wonder what the first one was. One would probably have to read
those old orthoepists. (That's the personal pronoun "one" that does
/not/ include the writer.)

Post by Ross
What about "falcon"?

Ah, yes. I've never heard an American use a "Christmas" (as Ken
Blake might say) pronunciation of that, and as a birder and a former
football fan I've heard it pretty often. I use what I think is
now the vast-majority pronunciation in the U.S., with an "Al" as in
"Alan".

[Ken Blake]

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Ross

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
The cluster -lm has obviously been problematic for English speakers
as well. In some words (balm, calm, psalm) the /l/ has long since
been dropped.

...
But it's back for a great many Americans. I'm waiting to be told
my pronunciation of "calm" or "palm" is incorrect because it doesn't
have an /l/. (I'll try to be tactful.)
Here in New Mexico one can hear the same person say "wolf" without
an /l/ but "salmon" or "salve" with one. One can also hear me say
"almond" with an /l/, which I think is frowned on in some places.
--
Jerry Friedman

Spelling pronunciation we have always with us.

I wonder what the first one was. One would probably have to read
those old orthoepists. (That's the personal pronoun "one" that does
/not/ include the writer.)

Post by Ross
What about "falcon"?

Ah, yes. I've never heard an American use a "Christmas" (as Ken
Blake might say) pronunciation of that,

I'm afraid you missed my admittedly slim joke when I said "There's no l
when I say "almond" Does that make it a Christmas almond?" Look at the
second and third words of the first sentence.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Ross

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
The cluster -lm has obviously been problematic for English
speakers as well. In some words (balm, calm, psalm) the /l/ has
long since been dropped.

...
But it's back for a great many Americans. I'm waiting to be told
my pronunciation of "calm" or "palm" is incorrect because it
doesn't have an /l/. (I'll try to be tactful.)
Here in New Mexico one can hear the same person say "wolf" without
an /l/ but "salmon" or "salve" with one. One can also hear me say
"almond" with an /l/, which I think is frowned on in some places.
--
Jerry Friedman

Spelling pronunciation we have always with us.

I wonder what the first one was. One would probably have to read
those old orthoepists. (That's the personal pronoun "one" that does
/not/ include the writer.)

Post by Ross
What about "falcon"?

Ah, yes. I've never heard an American use a "Christmas" (as Ken
Blake might say) pronunciation of that,

I'm afraid you missed my admittedly slim joke when I said "There's no
l when I say "almond" Does that make it a Christmas almond?" Look at
the second and third words of the first sentence.

It's a lemontree, Watson.

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
Spelling pronunciation we have always with us.

...

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
What about "falcon"?

Ah, yes. I've never heard an American use a "Christmas" (as Ken
Blake might say) pronunciation of that,

I'm afraid you missed my admittedly slim joke when I said "There's no l
when I say "almond" Does that make it a Christmas almond?" Look at the
second and third words of the first sentence.

Have no fear. When I said I'd never heard a Christmas pronunciation
of "falcon", I meant I'd never heard one with no L. (Though such a
pronunciation appears in AHD and M-W.)

[Ken Blake]

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
Spelling pronunciation we have always with us.

...

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
What about "falcon"?

Ah, yes. I've never heard an American use a "Christmas" (as Ken
Blake might say) pronunciation of that,

I'm afraid you missed my admittedly slim joke when I said "There's no l
when I say "almond" Does that make it a Christmas almond?" Look at the
second and third words of the first sentence.

Have no fear. When I said I'd never heard a Christmas pronunciation
of "falcon", I meant I'd never heard one with no L. (Though such a
pronunciation appears in AHD and M-W.)

That's what I thought you meant. But my allusion to Christmas was based
on "Noël."

[Quinn C]

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Ross

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
The cluster -lm has obviously been problematic for English speakers
as well. In some words (balm, calm, psalm) the /l/ has long since
been dropped.

...
But it's back for a great many Americans. I'm waiting to be told
my pronunciation of "calm" or "palm" is incorrect because it doesn't
have an /l/. (I'll try to be tactful.)
Here in New Mexico one can hear the same person say "wolf" without
an /l/ but "salmon" or "salve" with one. One can also hear me say
"almond" with an /l/, which I think is frowned on in some places.
--
Jerry Friedman

Spelling pronunciation we have always with us.

I wonder what the first one was. One would probably have to read
those old orthoepists. (That's the personal pronoun "one" that does
/not/ include the writer.)

Post by Ross
What about "falcon"?

Ah, yes. I've never heard an American use a "Christmas" (as Ken
Blake might say) pronunciation of that, and as a birder and a former
football fan I've heard it pretty often. I use what I think is
now the vast-majority pronunciation in the U.S., with an "Al" as in
"Alan".

I think the "Christmas pronunciation" only works when you use the last
name vowel, by which I mean "Al" as in "Alda" (THOUGHT, not TRAP.) That
was my intuition, but the dictionaries agree!

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
The cluster -lm has obviously been problematic for English speakers
as well. In some words (balm, calm, psalm) the /l/ has long since
been dropped.

But it's back for a great many Americans. I'm waiting to be told
my pronunciation of "calm" or "palm" is incorrect because it doesn't
have an /l/. (I'll try to be tactful.)
Here in New Mexico one can hear the same person say "wolf" without
an /l/ but "salmon" or "salve" with one. One can also hear me say
"almond" with an /l/, which I think is frowned on in some places.

Spelling pronunciation we have always with us.

Even among nonliterates? I wonder how that would be studied.

Post by Jerry Friedman
I wonder what the first one was. One would probably have to read
those old orthoepists. (That's the personal pronoun "one" that does
/not/ include the writer.)

One might consult Dobson, *The Pronunciation of English 1500-1700* (the
first enormous volume presents the findings, the second enormous volume
presents the data).

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
What about "falcon"?

Ah, yes. I've never heard an American use a "Christmas" (as Ken
Blake might say) pronunciation of that, and as a birder and a former
football fan I've heard it pretty often. I use what I think is
now the vast-majority pronunciation in the U.S., with an "Al" as in
"Alan".

Except in *The Maltese Falcon*, where the vowel of the first -al- is
copied into the second one.

[Ross]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
The cluster -lm has obviously been problematic for English speakers
as well. In some words (balm, calm, psalm) the /l/ has long since
been dropped.

But it's back for a great many Americans. I'm waiting to be told
my pronunciation of "calm" or "palm" is incorrect because it doesn't
have an /l/. (I'll try to be tactful.)
Here in New Mexico one can hear the same person say "wolf" without
an /l/ but "salmon" or "salve" with one. One can also hear me say
"almond" with an /l/, which I think is frowned on in some places.

Spelling pronunciation we have always with us.

Even among nonliterates? I wonder how that would be studied.

Post by Jerry Friedman
I wonder what the first one was. One would probably have to read
those old orthoepists. (That's the personal pronoun "one" that does
/not/ include the writer.)

One might consult Dobson, *The Pronunciation of English 1500-1700* (the
first enormous volume presents the findings, the second enormous volume
presents the data).

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Ross
What about "falcon"?

Ah, yes. I've never heard an American use a "Christmas" (as Ken
Blake might say) pronunciation of that, and as a birder and a former
football fan I've heard it pretty often. I use what I think is
now the vast-majority pronunciation in the U.S., with an "Al" as in
"Alan".

Except in *The Maltese Falcon*, where the vowel of the first -al- is
copied into the second one.

That assonance may have preserved it in the title, but Kenyon & Knott
(published a couple of years after the movie) have only "fall" for the
first syllable. (They note, as does Jones, that people engaged in the
sport of falconry do not have the /l/.)

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Post by Ross
Spelling pronunciation we have always with us.
What about "falcon"?

That's pondial - and covariant with the realization
of "a" - if you can believe
<URL:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pronunciation/english/falcon>

/Anders, Denmark.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an
adjacent vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

When I say the "dl" in "dreidl", the tip of my tongue stays anchored to
the roof of my mouth, just behind the teeth, while the sides of the
tongue drop down to perform the dual function of saying "l" while
releasing the "d". No schwa.
The same is true for words like "paddle" and "candle".

And label and table. The spelling reflects no difference at all.

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
I think I have a schwa in those words.
How about "m" in "rhythm" and the "-ism" etc. words?

I might have a schwa in those words, but if so it's so short that it's
hard to tell.

That's why we say "syllabic resonant."

Post by Peter Moylan
Irish Gaelic definitely inserts a schwa between some adjacent
consonants, and this has influenced Irish English to the point of giving
it words like "fillum". My own speech doesn't work that way, though.

But that's a word where Standard doesn't have a new syllable at all.

Is there an audible difference between IrishE -ism and StdE -ism?

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an
adjacent vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

...

When I say the "dl" in "dreidl", the tip of my tongue stays anchored to
the roof of my mouth, just behind the teeth, while the sides of the
tongue drop down to perform the dual function of saying "l" while
releasing the "d". No schwa.
The same is true for words like "paddle" and "candle".

My [l] is dental, so my tongue has to move from the alveolar position to
a dental one, and it loses contact with the roof of my mouth.

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
I think I have a schwa in those words.

...

[Dingbat]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an
adjacent vowel in English?

No idea.

Post by Dingbat
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.

...

When I say the "dl" in "dreidl", the tip of my tongue stays anchored to
the roof of my mouth, just behind the teeth, while the sides of the
tongue drop down to perform the dual function of saying "l" while
releasing the "d". No schwa.
The same is true for words like "paddle" and "candle".

My [l] is dental, so my tongue has to move from the alveolar position to
a dental one, and it loses contact with the roof of my mouth.

In <dr>, my d is postalveolar; in <dl>, my d is (apico)dental. So, I don't
need to change points of articulation for either <dr> or <dl>.

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
I think I have a schwa in those words.

...
--
Jerry Friedman

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an adjacent
vowel in English?
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a couple
of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.
DIRNDL (DIANDL in Austria) seems like a German spelling which leaves
us with DREIDL.
The German spelling DREIDEL is used in English, but how did there
come to also be the alternate spelling DREIDL in English?
Alternatively, why aren't more syllabic consonants spelled without
an adjacent vowel in English orthography?

I was reminded of this thread when driving past a Lidl supermarket this
afternoon. When a Feench person says it there is a very obvious schwa
between the d and the l. When I say it the schwa is barely perceptible,
close to non-existent.

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an adjacent
 vowel in English?
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a couple
 of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.
DIRNDL (DIANDL in Austria) seems like a German spelling which leaves
 us with DREIDL.
The German spelling DREIDEL is used in English, but how did there
 come to also be the alternate spelling DREIDL in English?
Alternatively, why aren't more syllabic consonants spelled without
 an adjacent vowel in English orthography?

I was reminded of this thread when driving past a Lidl supermarket this
afternoon. When a Feench person says it there is a very obvious schwa
between the d and the l. When I say it the schwa is barely perceptible,
close to non-existent.

On this benighted island, it's Liddle.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an adjacent
 vowel in English?
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a couple
 of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.
DIRNDL (DIANDL in Austria) seems like a German spelling which leaves
 us with DREIDL.
The German spelling DREIDEL is used in English, but how did there
 come to also be the alternate spelling DREIDL in English?
Alternatively, why aren't more syllabic consonants spelled without
 an adjacent vowel in English orthography?

I was reminded of this thread when driving past a Lidl supermarket
this afternoon. When a Feench person says it there is a very obvious
schwa between the d and the l. When I say it the schwa is barely
perceptible, close to non-existent.

On this benighted island, it's Liddle.

And nighting comes an hour earlier, now the clocks have been adjusted.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Katy Jennison
On this benighted island, it's Liddle.

Or, as Alice's family has it, Liddell.

Post by Sam Plusnet
And nighting comes an hour earlier, now the clocks have been adjusted.

Ours not till next week!

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 20:19:15 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Katy Jennison
On this benighted island, it's Liddle.

Or, as Alice's family has it, Liddell.

Most of this family take up sports:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liddle

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Sam Plusnet
And nighting comes an hour earlier, now the clocks have been adjusted.

Ours not till next week!

Infamous case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liddle_Towers

[musika]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an adjacent
 vowel in English?
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a couple
 of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.
DIRNDL (DIANDL in Austria) seems like a German spelling which leaves
 us with DREIDL.
The German spelling DREIDEL is used in English, but how did there
 come to also be the alternate spelling DREIDL in English?
Alternatively, why aren't more syllabic consonants spelled without
 an adjacent vowel in English orthography?

I was reminded of this thread when driving past a Lidl supermarket
this afternoon. When a Feench person says it there is a very obvious
schwa between the d and the l. When I say it the schwa is barely
perceptible, close to non-existent.

On this benighted island, it's Liddle.

I didn't realise you lived on Malta.

[Katy Jennison]

Post by musika

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an adjacent
 vowel in English?
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a couple
 of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.
DIRNDL (DIANDL in Austria) seems like a German spelling which leaves
 us with DREIDL.
The German spelling DREIDEL is used in English, but how did there
 come to also be the alternate spelling DREIDL in English?
Alternatively, why aren't more syllabic consonants spelled without
 an adjacent vowel in English orthography?

I was reminded of this thread when driving past a Lidl supermarket
this afternoon. When a Feench person says it there is a very obvious
schwa between the d and the l. When I say it the schwa is barely
perceptible, close to non-existent.

On this benighted island, it's Liddle.

I didn't realise you lived on Malta.

More Malteser than Malta.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by musika

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an adjacent
 vowel in English?
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a couple
 of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.
DIRNDL (DIANDL in Austria) seems like a German spelling which leaves
 us with DREIDL.
The German spelling DREIDEL is used in English, but how did there
 come to also be the alternate spelling DREIDL in English?
Alternatively, why aren't more syllabic consonants spelled without
 an adjacent vowel in English orthography?

I was reminded of this thread when driving past a Lidl supermarket this
afternoon. When a Feench person says it there is a very obvious schwa
between the d and the l. When I say it the schwa is barely perceptible,
close to non-existent.

On this benighted island, it's Liddle.

I didn't realise you lived on Malta.

More Malteser than Malta.

I was a bit slow to understand the reference to Malta, but Malta is (or
anyway was) be-knighted rather than benighted.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 19:54:57 GMT, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by musika

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an adjacent
 vowel in English?
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a
couple  of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.
DIRNDL (DIANDL in Austria) seems like a German spelling which
leaves  us with DREIDL.
The German spelling DREIDEL is used in English, but how did there
 come to also be the alternate spelling DREIDL in English?
Alternatively, why aren't more syllabic consonants spelled without
 an adjacent vowel in English orthography?

I was reminded of this thread when driving past a Lidl supermarket
this afternoon. When a Feench person says it there is a very
obvious schwa between the d and the l. When I say it the schwa is
barely perceptible, close to non-existent.

On this benighted island, it's Liddle.

I didn't realise you lived on Malta.

More Malteser than Malta.

Hawai'i? </Geordie accent>

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by musika

Post by Katy Jennison
On this benighted island, it's Liddle.

I didn't realise you lived on Malta.

That would make George Cross.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 18:34:09 +0000, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Dingbat
Subject: Why are only some syllabic consonants written without an adjacent
 vowel in English?
Consider syllabic l, written as <le> or <el> in English, with a couple
 of exceptions like DREIDL and DIRNDL.
DIRNDL (DIANDL in Austria) seems like a German spelling which leaves
 us with DREIDL.
The German spelling DREIDEL is used in English, but how did there
 come to also be the alternate spelling DREIDL in English?
Alternatively, why aren't more syllabic consonants spelled without
 an adjacent vowel in English orthography?

I was reminded of this thread when driving past a Lidl supermarket this
afternoon. When a Feench person says it there is a very obvious schwa
between the d and the l. When I say it the schwa is barely perceptible,
close to non-existent.

On this benighted island, it's Liddle.

On this neighbouring island* it's Leedle on TV adverts.

*which is benighted and be-dayed a few minutes later than where you are.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I was reminded of this thread when driving past a Lidl supermarket
this afternoon. When a Feench person says it there is a very
obvious schwa between the d and the l. When I say it the schwa is
barely perceptible, close to non-existent.

On this benighted island, it's Liddle.

I can't hear much of a schwa in "The Ballad of Lidl and Aldi". The
U-tube version is sung by an Irishman, I believe.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 00:01:08 GMT, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I was reminded of this thread when driving past a Lidl supermarket
this afternoon. When a Feench person says it there is a very
obvious schwa between the d and the l. When I say it the schwa is
barely perceptible, close to non-existent.

On this benighted island, it's Liddle.

I can't hear much of a schwa in "The Ballad of Lidl and Aldi". The
U-tube version is sung by an Irishman, I believe.

A classic
Here's a link for the google-averse: