tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post5106805848202626067..comments2024-03-17T09:14:13.950+00:00Comments on John Wells’s phonetic blog: oneJohn Wellshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-1781760061462251252010-09-20T10:25:51.027+01:002010-09-20T10:25:51.027+01:00My husband grew up less than 200 miles away from m...My husband grew up less than 200 miles away from me in California and naturally distinguishes THOUGHT and LOT with sounds I can tell apart only with effort (and sometimes a bit of lip-reading). He sometimes pronounces "want" with one of those sounds; I'm not sure which.<br /><br />But the accent of the speaker I mentioned really caught my attention at the time, and her LOT and THOUGHT were not that similar.<br /><br />"Was," "because" and "want" are all definitely STRUT for me, as are "from" and "of." <br /><br />Reduced "them" is rarely ðəm, usually əm. From literature I would have guessed that to be normal in many accents.Juliehttp://www.julieannmaahs.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-49234926859164068202010-09-19T11:02:00.735+01:002010-09-19T11:02:00.735+01:00Thank you Julie. I thought THOUGHT was possible in...Thank you Julie. I thought THOUGHT was possible in all three, but only "because" and "want" have that possibility in LPD. There's a Pronunciation Preference Poll for "because", which gives 57% for STRUT, but doesn't attempt to break up the percentages for THOUGHT and LOT, which is indeed a hard distinction for most of us to make in AmE.mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-83079648363924102722010-09-19T06:27:58.074+01:002010-09-19T06:27:58.074+01:00For some Southerners, "was" seems to be ...For some Southerners, "was" seems to be pronounced with what I think is a THOUGHT vowel, not LOT. That's a hard distinction for me to make, since I merge the two, but I believe this is the correct interpretation. The woman who taught me this was from Tennessee, but I do not know how widespread it is. She also pronounced "because" and "want" similarly.<br /><br />"wunst" is also spelled "oncet," and, either way, the ending t is dialectal.<br /><br />When I recently reread Huck Finn, my thought was that he was not speaking an accent that I have ever heard personally. I'm not sure it's southern at all, but perhaps archaic midwestern.Juliehttp://www.julieannmaahs.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-87457536647467769192010-09-18T11:01:12.218+01:002010-09-18T11:01:12.218+01:00@vp,
Yes for the diachronic sociololinguisics of ...@vp,<br /><br />Yes for the diachronic sociololinguisics of "was" that Twain seems to be indicating, I did extrapolate from "from", "of", "because" and probably other words the strong forms of which in AmE all have STRUT rather than LOT. But not just LOT, e.g. "them", which I increasingly hear with the strong form ðʌm in AmE, and perhaps significantly although LPD gives only "ðem, weak form ðəm" for both UK and US, the sound file for US is ðəm. <br /><br />On the other hand not only does this not happen with the conjunction "that", but it seems increasingly to have no weak form to un-de-stress. Young people in particular increasingly seem to have only the strong form "that" for the conjunction, in BrE as well as AmE, though this strikes me as AmE in origin.mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-30855519780889725342010-09-17T20:08:21.139+01:002010-09-17T20:08:21.139+01:00@Jongseong:
I am sure that LOT in "won"...@Jongseong:<br /><br />I am sure that LOT in "won" (Korean currency) is merely a spelling pronunciation.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-385022008924281482010-09-17T20:02:49.619+01:002010-09-17T20:02:49.619+01:00Yes. In Birmingham (UK) "wonder" as wel...Yes. In Birmingham (UK) "wonder" as well as "one" has LOT.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-16147958182911654312010-09-17T10:39:25.705+01:002010-09-17T10:39:25.705+01:00What about 'wonder' - do any native speake...What about 'wonder' - do any native speakers pronounce it with LOT rather than STRUT?Andrej Bjelakovicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-79521033903591324102010-09-16T22:06:21.762+01:002010-09-16T22:06:21.762+01:00@mallamb:
Yes, that also explains "from"...@mallamb:<br /><br />Yes, that also explains "from", "of", "because" and probably other words the strong forms of which in AmE all have STRUT rather than LOT.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-47259110355293019862010-09-16T18:15:02.184+01:002010-09-16T18:15:02.184+01:00@John C,
I think what must have happened in 19th-c...@John C,<br />I think what must have happened in 19th-century AmE was that the strong form of "was" was already yielding to an un-de-stressed weak form wəz, whose ə is of course even less functionally distinct from ʌ than in BrE. LPD gives wʌz as the synchronically main form for AmE. I don't really see how we can conclude anything about "one" and "once", though: "wunst" is a pronunciation spelling rather than a spelling pronunciation, isn't it, for how else would you represent wʌnst in conventional spelling? At least it's obviously not of the tradition of silly spellings for perfectly normal pronunciations, simply to remind the reader that the speech is supposed to be non-standard. I think wʌnst (or wʌntst) is typical of the sort of epenthetic t we have been talking about, which then gets metathesized into full-blown phonemic status.<br /><br />BTW have I been hypersensitized by this debate, or are altso, eltsewhere etc. forging ahead in the media?<br /><br />@John W<br />You do give ʌ in the primary American pronunciation of Pyongyang, but you give [pʰjɔŋ jaŋ] for the Korean. And the sound file for US sounds like ˌpiɑŋ ˈjɑːŋ!mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-65996288244974999932010-09-16T13:18:33.654+01:002010-09-16T13:18:33.654+01:00The effect is stronger because K and I don't d...The effect is stronger because K and I don't disturb the impression of Greek.Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-25807511727517509632010-09-16T13:12:51.324+01:002010-09-16T13:12:51.324+01:00Lipman, because the A without the crossbar is used...Lipman, because the A without the crossbar is used with capital letters, I've never read it as ʌ but as Greek capital lambda. KIA does this as well with the A, and every time I see the logo I can't help reading it as Greek 'KIL'.<br /><br />Just to be clear in case anyone gets confused, the 'a' in Samsung stands for the Korean /a/; it is the 'u' in the second syllable that stands for the Korean /ʌ/.Jongseonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12558136756392729306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-11000241927970243622010-09-16T12:16:11.989+01:002010-09-16T12:16:11.989+01:00Interestingly, Samsung's logo, or name in corp...Interestingly, Samsung's logo, or name in corporate font, is SɅMSUNG. Very probably an attempt at free variation rather than an actual allusion to [ʌ].Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-71637087327499022082010-09-16T11:59:47.465+01:002010-09-16T11:59:47.465+01:00@Jake: There are complicated factors involved in t...@Jake: There are complicated factors involved in the mapping of phonemic categories from one language to another. Koreans map the English STRUT vowel to /ʌ/ in some words but /a/ in others, although the former is the official preference and is far more common. But in the other direction, Korean learners of English consistently and virtually without exception map their /ʌ/ to the STRUT vowel, which is why you have ad-hoc romanizations like Samsung, Hyundai, Park Chung-hee, Kim Il-sung and Ji-Sung Park. 'Won' is used in the ad-hoc romanizations (as well as in more systematic ones) precisely because Koreans expect the STRUT vowel to be used and 'wun' looks strange.<br /><br />In North Korean pronunciation, /ʌ/ has become more rounded to [ɔ] in younger speakers, which may be a reason why Kim Il-sung's son is Kim Jong Il with an 'o' (the syllables 'sung' and 'Jong' are perfect rhymes in Korean).Jongseonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12558136756392729306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-6273445406351795512010-09-16T08:43:15.919+01:002010-09-16T08:43:15.919+01:00"10 Ns and 1 S reported LOT/CHANCE [out of 10..."10 Ns and 1 S reported LOT/CHANCE [out of 100 respondents], and in the youngest group, 40 + 4..."<br /><br />I wonder whether only 100 respondents (and only 1 S) is statistically significant enough to predict trends.<br /><br />"The research, which dates from 1998"<br /><br />So that's twelve year old research. Any plans on redoing it (preferably with a larger group of respondents)? I'd be interested to know whether the trend has continued the past decade.Kilian Hekhuishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01084720179158650652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-54533425098639083192010-09-16T08:35:02.884+01:002010-09-16T08:35:02.884+01:00I have STRUT in "one", and my accent (Mi...I have STRUT in "one", and my accent (Milton Keynes) has never been described as archaic, dialectal, or a cruel parody of U-RP. I'm surprised by those perceptions.Leohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04023787332836734901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-26064488568325480442010-09-15T22:24:15.152+01:002010-09-15T22:24:15.152+01:00@ Jongseong (continued): If you compare it with th...@ Jongseong (continued): If you compare it with <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/RP_English_monophthongs_chart.svg" rel="nofollow">this</a>, however, you'll see that RP STRUT is a bit closer. I don't know how reliable or meaningful those charts are though.Jakenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-41183677001884019252010-09-15T22:20:51.636+01:002010-09-15T22:20:51.636+01:00@ Jongseong: I would've thought that Korean /a...@ Jongseong: I would've thought that Korean /a/ would be closer to the RP STRUT vowel at least. That's what I get from looking at <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Korean_short_vowel_chart.png" rel="nofollow">this vowel chart</a> anyway. I know very little about Korean though. I just know how to say <em>happy birthday</em>.Jakenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-80195099906556109372010-09-15T21:13:01.273+01:002010-09-15T21:13:01.273+01:00I am aware that the use of the LOT vowel is common...I am aware that the use of the LOT vowel is common for Korean 'won'. What surprises me is that the pronunciation with the STRUT vowel is not even listed as an alternative pronunciation. The LPD gives the STRUT vowel in the primary American pronunciation of Pyongyang, another case where Korean /ʌ/ is spellt with an 'o'.Jongseonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12558136756392729306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-84501280252748060062010-09-15T20:06:53.720+01:002010-09-15T20:06:53.720+01:00Jongseong: I am merely reporting my experience, wh...Jongseong: I am merely reporting my experience, which is that the Korean currency is known in BrE as <b>wɒn</b>. Strangely, Korean short ㅓ, despite being unrounded, sounds to English people more like LOT than like STRUT.John Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-8670263910686113762010-09-15T20:02:59.497+01:002010-09-15T20:02:59.497+01:00I pronounce the Korean won as LOT=PALM, but STRUT ...I pronounce the Korean <i>won</i> as LOT=PALM, but STRUT in <i>one</i> and the native <i>won</i>, and I think that's conventional for current AmE. But something must have happened in 19th-century AmE: looking at the text of <i>Huckleberry Finn</i>, <i>one</i> is always spelled normatively, but the closely related <i>once</i> appears as <i>once</i> in Huck's narrative and most of the dialogue, but <i>wunst</i> in Jim's speech and one other speaker who has only one line and is portrayed as low-down. That could be dismissed as a spelling pronunciation, but Jim consistently says <i>wuz</i> whereas all other speakers (including Huck) say "was". Twain knew what he was doing, so this must reflect some kind of LOT pronunciation of these words even in regional AmE, with STRUT pretty much confined to Jim's AAVE.John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-26784588799065441172010-09-15T18:37:42.161+01:002010-09-15T18:37:42.161+01:00In the North of England, almost everyone says /tʃa...In the North of England, almost everyone says /tʃans/ but it is far less common to say /wɒn/. I quote Petyt (p.118):<br /><br />"in Huddersfield 94% of speakers said [wɒn], in Halifax 89%, but in Bradford only 35%"<br /><br />As I said yesterday, parts of East Anglia use /wɒn/ as well but there are so few people who live there that it probably didn't affect the LPD results.<br /><br />This is how I interpret the figures in LPD. Everyone in the North of England is aware that BBC presenters say "chance" differently from them, and this may be the subject of jokes from time to time. For whatever reason, not everyone notices the difference in other words such as "one" and it is less likely to be brought up in conversation. So, when they come to filling in an LPD questionnaire, some Northerners know that they are expected to write tʃɑːns as the correct form and do so, but they are unaware which is the preferred form for "one" as it doesn't get talked/joked about so much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-88973277242678118672010-09-15T17:20:02.796+01:002010-09-15T17:20:02.796+01:00@James D
The research, which dates from 1998, is ...@James D<br /><br />The research, which dates from 1998, is described in detail in <a href="http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/changingscene.pdf" rel="nofollow">a paper of JW's</a> (PDF).<br /><br />I think the fact that /wɒn/ marginally outscores /tʃans/ may provide some support for your contention that the former isn't just a northern pronunciation, although I'd be careful about reading too much into the numbers, given the self-selecting nature of the sample.JHJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03257258313943639485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-75637862057909819942010-09-15T15:58:11.458+01:002010-09-15T15:58:11.458+01:00A bit tangential, but I'm somewhat surprised t...A bit tangential, but I'm somewhat surprised that the only pronunciation given in the LPD for 'won' as in the Korean unit of currency has the LOT vowel. The pronunciation in Korean is /wʌn/ with an unrounded vowel; since there is no /w/+/o/ sequence in Korean (rounded vowels cannot follow /w/), most romanizations simply use 'wo' for the sequence /wʌ/.<br /><br />I use the STRUT vowel myself, so that 'won' as the unit of currency is homophonous in my speech with 'one' as well as 'won' as the past tense of 'win'. The STRUT vowel may not quite be cardinal /ʌ/ for most speakers of English, but to my ears it's still closer to the Korean /ʌ/ than any pronunciation of the LOT vowel (especially if it is merged with the PALM vowel, which sounds like /a/ to Korean ears).<br /><br />If you split FOOT and STRUT and use the STRUT vowel for the past tense of 'win', then in my opinion there is nothing wrong with using the same pronunciation for 'won' the unit of currency.Jongseonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12558136756392729306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-53092513179966372912010-09-15T15:23:39.604+01:002010-09-15T15:23:39.604+01:00How old is the research that is behind that graph,...How old is the research that is behind that graph, and where was it conducted? And it isn't just me who is perplexed on this one: Googling around reveals an <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:one#Pronunciation" rel="nofollow">interesting discussion on Wiktionary</a>.<br /><br />I do not believe that your analysis that this is merely a reporting issue over a "Northern" form is correct. That is not the environment in which my experiences of reactions to the OED pronunciation happened: this was comfortably south of those two famous vowel isoglosses. My suspicion is that this is a genuine spread of a feature in educated speech. I do not have the data to prove it, but this does not make my admittedly partial experiences "nonsense" or prejudice my hypothesis in any way. Language change does not have to emanate from Whitechapel: sometimes it can go the other way.James Dowdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11058389162481491681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-86586462818065098052010-09-15T13:16:52.320+01:002010-09-15T13:16:52.320+01:00Petyt's book, which I referenced yesterday, sa...Petyt's book, which I referenced yesterday, said that upwardly-mobile people from certain areas don't feel under pressure to switch from LOT to STRUT in words such as one, none, nothing, among, etc. That was written back in 1985, so the trend may have started around then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com