11

The transcription of "solely" is [ˈsəʊlli].
The fact that there are two "L" perplexes me.
Is it unnatural for you to pronounce "solely" with one "L"? (I mean: [ˈsəʊli])

the list of the dictionaries where the pronunciation of "solely" is [ˈsəʊlli]:
oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com
ldoceonline.com
cambridge.org

vocabulary.com says American speakers can omit one "L":
American English - [ˈsoʊ(l)li]
British English - [ˈsəʊlli]

Loviii
  • 4,074
  • 2
  • 15
  • 48
  • 2
    It's like a trampoline. The first L goes down, and the second L springs up. – TimR on some device Oct 04 '23 at 23:07
  • 3
    As a native BrE speaker I would find it natural to pronounce both "L"s separately, albeit very close together. – Peter Jennings Oct 05 '23 at 01:10
  • They are clearly two different l's. In any standard variety of English such as AmE, BrE, Aus English or New Zealand English. ˈ – Lambie Oct 05 '23 at 14:11
  • 3
    As an American English speaker, I agree with vocabulary.com: I usually hear (and say) it with just one "L", especially when speaking quickly. – Glenn Willen Oct 05 '23 at 21:59
  • @GlennWillen I agree, especially about the speaking quickly part. I can pronounce it with two Ls and usually do, but in everyday speech things are different. The most important thing to remember though is that our experiences as native speakers are wrong because some people on this site say so. – Thierry Oct 06 '23 at 18:14

4 Answers4

14

In my Canadian speech, if I'm pronouncing "solely" carefully, it's something like /'soʊɫli/.

Note the first "L" is the "dark l" that comes at the end of English syllables, like "pill" and "stall", while the second is "light l" that comes at the beginning of syllables.

Even in my rapid speech I can tell the difference between the length of the "l" in "solely" and, say, the invented acronym "SOLI".

gotube
  • 49,596
  • 7
  • 72
  • 154
6

It may be prounounced as a geminate consonant, held slightly longer than a single consonant. But this is a very subtle effect, and only perceptible in slow or deliberate speech. In normal speech it would be hard to perceive the gemmination of the /l/

Some languages, such as Italian, have quite distinctive geminate consonants (eg fato v. fatto) In English, it is much more subtle. And at normal speed there is probably no difference between a single and a doubled /l/.

James K
  • 217,650
  • 16
  • 258
  • 452
  • 3
    Can’t say I agree with this. The /ll/ here is very clearly and unambiguously longer than a single /l/. Even in casual speech, I would never pronounce wholly and holy the same either, any more than I would pronounce and new the same as anew. English doesn’t distinguish consonant length like Italian does, but it does consistently distinguish between single and doubled consonants across morpheme boundaries. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Oct 05 '23 at 09:36
  • 1
    @JanusBahsJacquet I agree and I am surprised you let that photography question in ELU present a confusing picture of morphemes. Anyway, it's funny but to properly say "solely", it comes very close to the doubling of a consonant in Italian. – Lambie Oct 05 '23 at 14:15
  • @JanusBahsJacquet I'd pronounce wholly and holy the same for the sake of puns, but not otherwise. So while it's unusual I wouldn't say it's unacceptable to do so. – Spitemaster Oct 05 '23 at 16:31
  • 1
    My accent, being an Estuary-influenced London English, also has the WHOLLY-HOLY diphthong split. The difference in vowels would be much more salient than any gemination of the /l/ or mixing of dark and clear /l/ allophones in my case. – Michaelyus Oct 05 '23 at 17:21
  • @Janus For me, at least, it's not that wholly or solely is short, so much as it is that holy and soli often also have an /l/ at the end of the syllable and the beginning of the next syllable. I don't pronounce holy as /ho li/, but /hol li/. – trlkly Oct 05 '23 at 21:32
  • @trlkly That sounds exactly backwards. The longer consonant is due to the fact that the first syllable in wholly ends in /l/ and the second begins in /l/; in holy, the first syllable has no /l/. If you’re pronouncing holy as /hoʊl.li/ and wholly as /hoʊ.li/, then that’s very idiosyncratic – the norm is the other way around. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Oct 05 '23 at 23:07
  • @Janus I'm saying I pronounce both words as [hoʊɫ.li]. When enunciating clearly, I do wind up holding the [ɫ] out longer for "wholly", but I don't always do that. So both "holy" and "wholly" can sound the same for me. But I do not pronounce it /hoʊ.li/. – trlkly Oct 05 '23 at 23:53
4

Suppose there was a geologist named Ms Hall, and they had a mineral named after them. It would be natural for it to be named Hallite. Think about how you would pronounce that.

Contrastingly, consider the first room you go into in a residential house. Some people call this room a hall. Suppose it has a light in it. That's the hall light.

Compare the pronunciations: Hallite vs hall light. Solely has the second, geminate, consonant in it.

For me personally, unless excused by very rapid speech, for 'solely' to be pronounced without this geminate consonant would marked*.

* the linguists call it that to avoid saying 'wrong' :)

AakashM
  • 398
  • 5
  • 12
0

It's not really strange if you disect the word.

  • Sole - səʊl

  • ly - li

  • Solely - səʊlli

Because you don't pronounce the e at the end of 'sole', you end up with a double l.

paddotk
  • 227
  • 1
  • 4