Pronunciation of 'Wisconsin'

Damian in Edinburgh wrote: "...do any of you Americans know exactly why the State name Kansas is pronounced the way it is, while that of Arkansas comes out as entirely different? Why does the addition of an "Ar" to Kansas alter it's pronunciation so radically?"

I did a bit of research, and found that in 1881, the Arkansas General Assembly passed a resolution in regards to the pronunciation.

It reads: "Whereas, confusion of practice has arisen in the pronunciation of the name of our state and it is deemed important that the true pronunciation should be determined for use in oral official proceedings.

-- And, whereas, the matter has been thoroughly investigated by the State Historical Society and the Eclectic Society of Little Rock, which have agreed upon the correct pronunciation as derived from history, and the early usage of the American immigrants.

-- Be it therefore resolved by both houses of the General Assembly, that the only true pronunciation of the name of the state, in the opinion of this body, is that received by the French from the native Indians and committed to writing in the French word representing the sound. It should be pronounced in three (3) syllables, with the final "s" silent, the "a" in each syllable with the Italian sound, and the accent on the first and last syllables. The pronunciation with the accent on the second syllable with the sound of "a" in "man" and the sounding of the terminal "s" is an innovation to be discouraged."

It seems that before this date, several variations were used (including the one related to Kansas). It also seems that the spelling of ARKANSAW was once used to refer to the name of the former territory.

Back to Illinois. What about the first vowel? I have [E5@nOI] as though it were spelled "Ellinoi".

I should add that I'm from the midwest.

In regards to the first vowel in Illinois, I use [I] (same as the word ILL), but I have heard the variety that Rick uses from people born and raised in Illinois.

One thing is for sure; I never throw an intrusive R in words such as Washington and wash. That is something I associate with speakers from southern Illinois and Indiana, who generally sound the same as Kentucky natives.

I read an article a couple of months ago about how some people from this region and other regions will add an intrusive L in words such as both (bolth), but I have never added an intrusive L to any word.

Sorry for going off topic, as this was primarily geared at how we say Wisconsin.

<<born and raised in Illinois.>>

I'm not actually from Illinois, but Ohio.

>>Back to Illinois. What about the first vowel? I have [E5@nOI] as though it were spelled "Ellinoi".<<

Likewise, I myself pronounce it [ˈɜ̟ːɰɨ̃ːnɔːɪ̯], which is the norm for the part of the Milwaukee area which I am from (the West Side), but I do hear people here (from the South Side) who do pronounce it with [ˈɪːɰɨ̃ːnɔːɪ̯].

John McCain's accent is interesting. He also seems to put an [r\] in words like "Washington", and it sounds as if he has a ferry-furry merger, which I would associate with the Delaware Valley.

What about "Worcester"? I've heard people pronounce it [wOr\t_SEst@`] "war chester" but I don't think that's correct. How do natives pronounce it?

>>I read an article a couple of months ago about how some people from this region and other regions will add an intrusive L in words such as both (bolth), but I have never added an intrusive L to any word.<<

The only word around here which I know of has an intrusive /l/ is "thorough", which is pronounced as [ˈθʲʁ̩ːɯː] here but which has an underlying form of /ˈθərəl/. Contrast this with [ˈθʲʁ̩ːoː], which is what it would be were it actually /ˈθəro/ here. And mind you that this is likely influenced by the word "thoroughly" which is [ˈθʲʁ̩ːɯːɰiː] corresponding to /ˈθərəli/ here.

"Worcester" is pronounced like "woosta".

Worcester, whether in England or Massachusetts, is pronounced non-rhotically as [ˈwʊstə] and rhotically as [ˈwʊstɚ]. As someone who's actually from the Worcester area, I find any other pronunciation quite cringe-inducing.

As for intrusive /l/, I don't think it's present in the dialect here. I have [ˈbɤʊθ ] and [ˈθʌɹɤʊ], the latter demonstrating my hurry-furry distinction. On the other hand, intrusive [ɹ] is predominant here, among non-rhotic and rhotic speakers alike.

I myself used to pronounced "Worcester" as [ˈwʁ̩sʲɨsʲtʲʁ̩ː] (but "Worcestershire" as in the sauce as [ˈwʁ̩sʲtʲʁ̩ʃʲʁ̩ː]) but these days pronounce it as [ˈwʊsʲtʲʁ̩ː] (and "Worcestershire" as [ˈwʊsʲtʲʁ̩ʃʲʁ̩ː]).

Actually, that is somewhat inaccurate, in my old and new pronunciations of "Worcestershire" and my new pronunciation of "Worcester" I do often tend to use [sʲːtʲ] rather than [sʲtʲ]...

What about "Nevada" and "Oregon"? I'm guilty of having /n@vAd@/ and /Or@gAn/ but that's not what the natives use.

I myself have [nəːˈvɛ̯æːɾəː] and [ˈɔːʁəːgãːn] for "Nevada" and "Oregon"; I know that it should be (within the phonology of my dialect) [ˈɔːʁəːgɨ̃ːn] for "Oregan", but I still use [ˈɔːʁəːgãːn] nonetheless.