tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post3232498062819963005..comments2024-03-17T09:14:13.950+00:00Comments on John Wells’s phonetic blog: a visit from OrlandoJohn Wellshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-31685304680411871052011-04-18T19:13:29.009+01:002011-04-18T19:13:29.009+01:00Ah, so Gough rhymes with Brough! I happen to have ...Ah, so Gough rhymes with Brough! I happen to have had some idea how Brough is pronounced, because <i>Brouffia</i> is named after two Broughs.<br /><br />Le Goff is a Breton surname.David Marjanovićnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-67571293094626151062011-04-17T21:45:10.783+01:002011-04-17T21:45:10.783+01:00I use [ɒː] in "Laura", but /ɔɚ/ in "...I use [ɒː] in "Laura", but /ɔɚ/ in "aura", "aural", "Taurus", and "saurian". With the exception of "Laura", my [ɒːrV] words seem pretty much equivalent to the cases in RP - "Laurie", "Lauren", "Lawrence", "laurel" (and non-pre-rhotically, "Austria", "sausage", "claustropobic") - where a presumed historical /ɔː/ has been lowered to /ɒ/.Lazar Taxonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13221219358689771815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-41576986108803211652011-04-17T21:01:14.363+01:002011-04-17T21:01:14.363+01:00@Lazar:
"Accents if English" lists a se...@Lazar:<br /><br />"Accents if English" lists a set of NORTH words where the stressed vowel precedes intervocalic non-morpheme-final /r/: <br /><br />aura, aural, Laura, Taurus. <br /><br />Do these words have your "sorry", "Laurie" or "glory" vowel?vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-80098962891176773232011-04-17T19:36:10.315+01:002011-04-17T19:36:10.315+01:00I mean, "radical phonemic reanalysis".I mean, "radical phonemic reanalysis".Lazar Taxonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13221219358689771815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-91928773254156778362011-04-17T19:35:24.848+01:002011-04-17T19:35:24.848+01:00«I wish you would treat it as a sequence of _somet...«I wish you would treat it as a sequence of _something_ and /r/! But obviously that something can't be /ɔː/ if it appears nowhere else. The [ɔː] must be an allophone of something else.»<br /><br />Why do you insist on that? The easiest thing, in my view, is to consider it to be a fundamentally rhotic phoneme, /ɔɚ/, analogous to the phonemes that I use in NEAR, SQUARE and NURSE. The fact that "Laurie" and "glory" don't rhyme means that I can't treat THOUGHT and NORTH-FORCE as the same phoneme. The only other choice would be to treat NORTH-FORCE as a sequence of GOAT plus /r/, but this would make necessary a radical phonemic analysis, with NEAR being FLEECE plus /r/ and so forth.Lazar Taxonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13221219358689771815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-63289553320601684262011-04-17T19:25:49.826+01:002011-04-17T19:25:49.826+01:00«I suppose I could also treat it as a sequence of ...«I suppose I could also treat it as a sequence of /ɔː/ and /r/ - although this /ɔː/ would appear nowhere else.»<br /><br />I wish you would treat it as a sequence of _something_ and /r/! But obviously that something can't be /ɔː/ if it appears nowhere else. The [ɔː] must be an allophone of something else. The question is what. Could you look at me arguments in more detail and see how they apply to you?mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-87733083866047490482011-04-17T19:17:19.617+01:002011-04-17T19:17:19.617+01:00Ok, I'm not quite sure what you're asking,...Ok, I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I'll sumarize my phoneme distribution.<br /><br />NORTH and FORCE use /ɔɚ/, which I do consider to be a single phoneme. (I suppose I could also treat it as a sequence of /ɔː/ and /r/ - although this /ɔː/ would appear nowhere else.)<br /><br />LOT uses /ɑː/, while THOUGHT uses /ɒː/. GOAT uses /oʊ/, which I realize as [ɤʊ].<br /><br />So yes, I have a three-way opposition between "sorry" (in the LOT set), "Laurie" (in the THOUGHT set), and "glory" (in the NORTH-FORCE set). /ɒː/-before-/r/ is also found in a few other cases - "laurel", "Lauren" and "Lawrence" (why always after /l/, I don't know).Lazar Taxonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13221219358689771815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-51030791734142618682011-04-17T18:40:39.702+01:002011-04-17T18:40:39.702+01:00No, no, no, Lazar, of course it's not. I thoug...No, no, no, Lazar, of course it's not. I thought we were supposed to be discussing what the _vowel_ phonemes in NORTH and/or FORCE are, and what the lexical set items NORTH and FORCE represent r-colouring _of_. <br /><br />I assume you mean "I consider GOAT, NORTH-FORCE and THOUGHT to be three different phonemes _or_phoneme_sequences_". You could say that about older RP too, but the phonemes and phoneme sequences are differently distributed between those lexical set items: əʊ, ɔː, ɔə, ɔː. For current RP you would have to say two different phonemes or phoneme sequences, with the phonemes and phoneme sequences differently distributed again: əʊ, ɔː, ɔː, ɔː: <br /><br />I have lost track of what your own AmEng speech is. Perhaps you could remind me, but what do you mean by «It helps that in my case, "Laurie" [ˈlɒːɹi] doesn't rhyme with "glory" [ˈglɔɚi] (nor with "sorry") although many AmEng speakers would merge those two sequences»? Are you saying that your "sorry" doesn't go with your "Laurie"? Or if not, that you have a three-way opposition between "Laurie", "glory" and "sorry"? Is any such opposition reflected in some extended lexical set? And how does it help? Or what does it help? From what you have said before, and from my understanding of the situation in general, it clearly doesn't help to maintain the NORTH-FORCE opposition.mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-86209241792729692902011-04-16T22:11:56.997+01:002011-04-16T22:11:56.997+01:00mallamb: In my analysis of my own AmEng speech, I ...mallamb: In my analysis of my own AmEng speech, I consider GOAT, NORTH-FORCE and THOUGHT to be three different phonemes. It helps that in my case, "Laurie" [ˈlɒːɹi] doesn't rhyme with "glory" [ˈglɔɚi] (nor with "sorry"), although many AmEng speakers would merge those two sequences. (My GOAT, by the way, is [ɤʊ].) I just don't think it's useful to identify NORTH-FORCE with THOUGHT for most AmEng speakers outside of the New York City area.Lazar Taxonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13221219358689771815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-30366533470024540992011-04-16T12:56:05.748+01:002011-04-16T12:56:05.748+01:00John C,
No doubt you do, but if you have the NORTH...John C,<br />No doubt you do, but if you have the NORTH-FORCE merger your [sort], [tort], [kort] are not functionally distinct from [sɔrt], [tɔrt], [kɔrt]. The fact that you put them in square brackets rather than solidi presumably means you recognize there is no functional opposition between them and the different quality vowels in your [sɔt], [tɔt], [kɔt]. And you have told us that you do not have the LOT-THOUGHT merger, so I do not doubt that your preference for [ɔ] over [ɒ] to represent THOUGHT reflects a realization of it more distant from your [ɑ] for LOT than the Bostonian [ɒ] that Lazar was talking about.<br /><br />So it's not surprising that your r-coloured NORTH-FORCE is closer still, maintaining a distance parallel to that between the Bostonian [ɒ] and [ɔr]. That doesn’t mean it realizes a different phoneme from your /ɔ/, any more than the Bostonian [ɔ] does in [ɔr]. Whether 'few Americans would consider "caught" and "court" to have the same vowel in any sense' is not a good guide to phoneme identity, but if they were the few Americans who do NOT have the NORTH-FORCE merger, they would be absolutely right NOT to consider "caught" and "court" to have the same vowel in any sense. <br /><br />So Lazar, I agree that it's _more_ than likely that Americans would 'tell you that "baaed" and "bard" have the same vowel, the latter simply with the addition of /r/', and that would obviously be a relatively unproblematic NS-speaker intuition, but the fact that the _phonetic_ qualities are so different in "caught" and "court" even for those who have the NORTH-FORCE merger doesn't mean that they have completely different vowel _phonemes_ if there is only the one phoneme for them to have, with allophones varying from ɒ to ɔ. And as you say, only relatively few do have a different vowel phoneme for "court" to have, namely GOAT. <br /><br />Or are you saying that even given a NORTH-FORCE merger, GOAT is the vowel you would identify in 'sort' and 'tort' as well as 'court', while saying that "caught" has what you propose to transcribe as [ɒː]? I don't think many people would agree with you.mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-17879542286832102512011-04-16T01:29:11.269+01:002011-04-16T01:29:11.269+01:00And I do say [sort], [tort], [kort].And I do say [sort], [tort], [kort].John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-21894790457139179402011-04-15T08:17:56.525+01:002011-04-15T08:17:56.525+01:00I have the NORTH-FORCE merger but not the LOT-THOU...I have the NORTH-FORCE merger but not the LOT-THOUGHT one, and for me <i>caught</i> is [kɔt] whereas <i>court</i> is [kort], the same as the nuclear vowel of GOAT or perhaps a little more tense; as I said before, [ɒ] is as alien to my speech as [y]. So the vowels are indeed distinct in quality, but there is no lowering.John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-5132001062033030282011-04-15T07:58:28.424+01:002011-04-15T07:58:28.424+01:00John Maidment: the spelling goff came from the Oxf...John Maidment: the spelling <i>goff</i> came from the Oxford Names Companion. Thanks for setting me right.John Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-47407809015108037522011-04-14T18:29:19.004+01:002011-04-14T18:29:19.004+01:00mallamb: It's true that I wasn't consideri...mallamb: It's true that I wasn't considering the NORTH-FORCE distinction, but the number of distinguishers in the US population is extremely small. Their existence does not render my statement, "few Americans would consider "caught" and "court" to have the same vowel in any sense", bizarre, because those few remaining distinguishers are obviously not going to be the primary reason.Lazar Taxonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13221219358689771815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-48342110198144625202011-04-14T14:48:08.959+01:002011-04-14T14:48:08.959+01:00The Cornish for "smith" is gov (Kernewek...The Cornish for "smith" is gov (Kernewek Kemmyn spelling) or gof (traditional spelling, but not goff.John Maidmenthttp://blogjam.namenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-47186979677288869302011-04-14T11:19:09.098+01:002011-04-14T11:19:09.098+01:00Lazar,
I don't think anyone has yet made it qu...Lazar,<br />I don't think anyone has yet made it quite clear WHY your statement "I think it needs to be pointed out that the American English /ɔː/ is very commonly realized as [ɒː], to the extent that few Americans would consider "caught" and "court" to have the same vowel in any sense" is as bizarre as Anon says it is. It certainly does need to be pointed out that the American English /ɔː/ is very commonly realized as [ɒː], as it is not very commonly realized that it is very commonly realized as [ɒː]. John Cowan took exception to my using [ɒː] for it some time ago on here, and I gave a more explicit explanation of the conflicting AmE and BrE conventions for the phonetics and phonology of it. <br /><br />But however you transcribe "caught" for those Americans who don't have the LOT-THOUGHT merger, the reason why "caught" and "court" was a bizarre example is that not a few of them, including phonologists as well as phoneticians, would not "consider them to have the same vowel in any sense" precisely because for them, not having the NORTH-FORCE merger either, they don't. So for them the vowel qualities are different not just because of the r colouring mentioned by Anon: kɔːt and kɔ:rt, which with a narrower transcription marking that difference would be kɒ(ː)t~kɔ(ː)rt (with NORTH), but also because of the functionally (phonologically) different vowel: kɒ(ː)t~ko(ː)rt/koʊrt.<br /><br />If you had chosen "taught" and "tort" or "sought" and "sort" as your examples, there would still have been a sufficiently striking difference between the allophonic qualities of the vowels to make it more plausible to say that few Americans would consider them "to have the same vowel in any sense" (without the benefit of specialist training), and there wouldn't have been the complicating factor of the FORCE variant: afaik not even AmE speakers who say foʊrt and poʊrt say toʊrt or soʊrt.mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-87050099036882951032011-04-14T08:03:17.583+01:002011-04-14T08:03:17.583+01:00Court has a diphthong in (older) RP, so it should ...Court <i>has a diphthong in (older) RP, so it should indeed be a closer same vowel than in </i>caught<i> in GenAm and local accents.</i><br /><br />"A closer vowel", of course (editing error).Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-5409608379213375722011-04-14T07:36:29.244+01:002011-04-14T07:36:29.244+01:00@Lazar Taxon:
You missed my point; I picked that ...@Lazar Taxon:<br /><br /><i>You missed my point; I picked that example precisely because it demonstrates how the equivalent of RP /ɔː/ has diverged into two very different qualities in AmEng </i><br /><br />From a historical point of view there are three vowel qualities: that of THOUGHT which had Early Modern English [ɒː], that of NORTH with Early Modern English [ɒr] or [ɒːr], and that of FORCE with early Modern English [oːr]. <br /><br />In RP these have all merged into what is phonetically often somewhere between [ɔː] and [oː]. <br /><br />In (horse-hoarse-merged) AmE, NORTH and FORCE have merged into something like R-colored [ɔɚ] (qualitatively not dissimilar perhaps from RP NORTH-FORCE-THOUGHT), while AmE THOUGHT has usually remained open as [ɒː ~ ɑː ~ aː]<br /><br />So it's not that AmEng has diverged, but rather that is has not merged quite so much as RP has.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-46270626712674012632011-04-14T07:21:49.006+01:002011-04-14T07:21:49.006+01:00Court has a diphthong in (older) RP, so it should ...<i>Court</i> has a diphthong in (older) RP, so it should indeed be a closer same vowel than in <i>caught</i> in GenAm and local accents.Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-77631023439709432902011-04-14T06:56:19.418+01:002011-04-14T06:56:19.418+01:00I pronounce "caught" and "court&quo...I pronounce "caught" and "court" with distinctly different vowels. The former is hovering somewhere between back [ɑ] and central [ä]; the latter is definitely [ɔ].Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-81158458550008101982011-04-14T05:11:19.553+01:002011-04-14T05:11:19.553+01:00Sorry for the multi-post, but when I said "si...Sorry for the multi-post, but when I said "significantly higher", I meant relative to the other AmEng vowel, not relative to British /ɔː/. American and British "court" (and British "caught", obviously) both use pretty much the same vowel quality.Lazar Taxonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13221219358689771815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-10656274074648583042011-04-14T05:07:29.567+01:002011-04-14T05:07:29.567+01:00Gah, that should be "not accompanied orthogra...Gah, that should be "not accompanied orthographically by 'r'".Lazar Taxonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13221219358689771815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-14721122395114885312011-04-14T05:06:43.984+01:002011-04-14T05:06:43.984+01:00I should add, the use of a cringe-inducingly open ...I should add, the use of a cringe-inducingly open [ɒː] in place of [ɔː] (that is, when not accompanied orthographically by ) is one of the hallmarks of an American doing a terrible fake British accent, such as you can hear on Saturday Night Live.Lazar Taxonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13221219358689771815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-57396865384829991332011-04-14T05:02:45.959+01:002011-04-14T05:02:45.959+01:00@Anonymous: You missed my point; I picked that exa...@Anonymous: You missed my point; I picked that example precisely because it demonstrates how the equivalent of RP /ɔː/ has diverged into two very different qualities in AmEng - the r-colored one is significantly higher, and the non-r-colored one is significantly lower. Americans would likely tell you that "baaed" and "bard" have the same vowel, the latter simply with the addition of /r/, but that "caught" and "court" have completely different vowels, because the qualities are so different. This opening of historical /ɔː/ is what has facilitated the low-back merger found in the West.<br /><br />@Phil Smith: As I said, the phonemic distribution is different, but the phoneme's realization (that is, its quality) is not too divergent from the broader mass of AmEng dialects.Lazar Taxonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13221219358689771815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-11894913016786981832011-04-14T00:49:38.895+01:002011-04-14T00:49:38.895+01:00*used in LOT words*used in LOT wordsPhil Smithnoreply@blogger.com