Lot-cloth split.

Actually, i'm preparing a project of lot-cloth split but i'm just a beginner of phonetic. Lot-cloth split is so difficult for me...

The main problem is i come from hong kong and never been to Britain or America before. i really don't know how to distinguish different accents.

After i search lot-cloth split in the wiki and this forum, i still can't understand and think this's really complicated and difficult :(

what actually the lot-cloth split is? and are there any rules of lot-cloth split happen?

i only know it will happen before voiceless fricatives, and it will affect the words end in -og...?

sorry for asking this question, but really want somebody can help me:(

The lot-cloth split is basically the exact opposite of the cot-caught merger, so you might want to study that as well.

umum...i haven't learn the cot-caught merger yet.

i'm finding in which situation, the word will pronounce at lot-vowel, and the word need to pronounce at the cloth-vowel.

maybe, if the words are end in -og, the word will become lot-vowel?
if the vowel is before voiceless fricative like s/f/θ, the word will becom cloth-vowel?

<<maybe, if the words are end in -og, the word will become lot-vowel?>>

Not necessarily. In lot-cloth split, non cot-caught merged dialects, words such as 'log' are pronounced like 'cloth', and words like 'possible' are pronounced like 'lot'.

I don't believe there are any concrete rules concerning the lot-cloth split.

The CLOTH-LOT split, is based on Wells' lexical sets, which I find a bit problematic (although I'm a fan of Wells). Those sets are primarily based on the dialects of England--in America is would probably be more accurately termed the LOT-LONG split, since "cloth" might mislead one into thinking vowel rounding occurs before all TH words, which is not the case (it's only unvoiced ones).

It's nature is a bit elusive but in GenAm (non-CAUGHT-COT merged) the rule is generally that the vowel in LOT words is unrounded, unless it comes before /g/, /N/, /f/, /T/, and /s/ (i.e. voiceless fricatives and voiced velars).

There are some questionable elements, though. Many GenAm-related dialects round the vowel in "on," but that's basically the only -n word that applies. The "o" is sometimes rounded in -k words, -b words and -d words, but one select ones ("chocolate," "God," and "job" come to mind).

Some variant of this split exists in parts of Southern England as well. Not so much in London, but definitely in East Anglia and the West Country.

Get free shipping when shopping for Ed Hardy products


Get a huge variety of Ed Hardy clothing, NIKE, Adidas, Christian Audigier and a lot more brands at a discounted price and with worldwide free shipping. So visit www.raininghollywood.com and start ordering today.

I pronounce HONG KONG, LONG SONG, WRONG SONG all with an unrounded vowel: /A/.

i have to say something about the excite experience of shopping.
i found a export company who special in various lady's handbag with very low price and i have buy some lastest coogi jean and polo Tshirt for my friend and me.actually the clothing is not bad.but they can't get latest style of bape jacket .following the site ww.nikems.com

It was only recently that RP transitioned from CLOTH=THOUGHT back to CLOTH=LOT. You can see traces of CLOTH=THOUGHT in cartoons when the royal family is caricatured as pronouncing "off" as "orf", because in RP NORTH=FORCE=THOUGHT, so "or" is a pretty unambiguous spelling for the /O/ sound.

It's true that the split began as a simple allophonic (and automatic) distinction, but now is no longer so: you cannot predict which words belong to CLOTH without looking at actual pronunciation data, though the guidelines given by Trawicks above basically still apply. There are also some marginal cases where some speakers show a CLOTH-type pronunciation and others do not: where non-North-Americans have /dQg/, /frQg/, some North Americans have /dOg/, /frOg/, some have /dOg/, /frAg/ (me, for instance), and some have /dAg/, /frAg/, even outside the scope of the cot/caught merger.

Now, however, CLOTH=THOUGHT is under pressure from both sides: outside North America, CLOTH=LOT is pretty well universal, whereas in the U.S. the spread of the THOUGHT=LOT ("caught/cot") merger is making the question irrelevant, and in Canada it is already so. I personally will carry on with CLOTH=THOUGHT distinct from LOT=PALM for however long I've got, but I shouldn't be surprised if CLOTH as a distinct lexical set becomes unnecessary by the next century.