Banal is ba-nahl for me; it rhymes with Natal, cabal, Mahal, chagall etc.
I also rhyme father and rather.
Is "father" the only broad-A word in NA speech?
I also rhyme father and rather.
Is "father" the only broad-A word in NA speech?
The Pronunciation of "Blog" in American English
<<Is "father" the only broad-A word in NA speech?>>
No but it's one of very few. There are a few isolated examples like "swath" and "waft" which commonly have [A] in North American English (yet even those have possible non-'broad A' variants here) but that's pretty much it. Apparently in a few places in New England there are some more words in the 'broad-A' class (since especially coastal New England was in relatively frequent contact with Britain it picked up a few developments in British English such as the 'broad A' and loss of rhoticity which postdated North American colonization) but apparently that feature is now overall recessive in New England. Lazar might be able to comment further on that.
This is not a traditional British 'broad A' for sure but since I'm "cot-caught" merged to [A] the [wO:]- of RP "water" is my [wA]- (so I have the same vowels in "father" and "water," to clarify), making it another word I have with orthographical <a> and spoken [A].
No but it's one of very few. There are a few isolated examples like "swath" and "waft" which commonly have [A] in North American English (yet even those have possible non-'broad A' variants here) but that's pretty much it. Apparently in a few places in New England there are some more words in the 'broad-A' class (since especially coastal New England was in relatively frequent contact with Britain it picked up a few developments in British English such as the 'broad A' and loss of rhoticity which postdated North American colonization) but apparently that feature is now overall recessive in New England. Lazar might be able to comment further on that.
This is not a traditional British 'broad A' for sure but since I'm "cot-caught" merged to [A] the [wO:]- of RP "water" is my [wA]- (so I have the same vowels in "father" and "water," to clarify), making it another word I have with orthographical <a> and spoken [A].
Don't forget words like "calm", "balm", and "palm", which do normally have [A] in NAE dialects, excepting possibly ones that have spelling pronunciation-inserted an [5] in there, potentially shifting the [A] in the process.
<<Don't forget words like "calm", "balm", and "palm", which do normally have [A] in NAE dialects, excepting possibly ones that have spelling pronunciation-inserted an [5] in there, potentially shifting the [A] in the process.>>
Oh that's true I wasn't even thinking of those words, altho just like my "water" example they're not in the 'broad A' class either (in fact I believe Wells has PALM as a category). Anyway, personally I naturally assume "al" to be indicative of [A] anyway except in those cases like "half" or "calf" where I have [{]. Of course as we've discussed before I have more instances of "al" with [A] anyway ("call" "all" "talk" etc) due to historical /O(:)/ > /A/ in my dialect.
Oh that's true I wasn't even thinking of those words, altho just like my "water" example they're not in the 'broad A' class either (in fact I believe Wells has PALM as a category). Anyway, personally I naturally assume "al" to be indicative of [A] anyway except in those cases like "half" or "calf" where I have [{]. Of course as we've discussed before I have more instances of "al" with [A] anyway ("call" "all" "talk" etc) due to historical /O(:)/ > /A/ in my dialect.
<<There are a few isolated examples like "swath" and "waft" which commonly have [A] in North American English (yet even those have possible non-'broad A' variants here) but that's pretty much it.>>
In my dialect "swath" and "waft" both use [Q].
As for their pronunciation of [A] by most North American English speakers, I think that rather than being cases of trap-bath splitting ([{]->[A]), they would be examples of the father-bother merger ([Q]->[A]), along with other "wa-" words like "watch" and "Watt" that use [Q] in RP.
<<Apparently in a few places in New England there are some more words in the 'broad-A' class (since especially coastal New England was in relatively frequent contact with Britain it picked up a few developments in British English such as the 'broad A' and loss of rhoticity which postdated North American colonization) but apparently that feature is now overall recessive in New England. Lazar might be able to comment further on that.>>
My pleasure. ;-) Well the thing is, in New England you have the special case of the word "aunt", and then you have a whole bunch of other "trap-bath-splittable words".
Pronouncing "aunt" as [Ant] seems to be practically universal around here. I had high school classmates who otherwise didn't have much of a New England accent (they'd sometimes be completely rhotic, and Mary-merry-marry merged), and who would have no other trace of the trap-bath split in their speech, but who would still pronounce "aunt" as [Ant].
I get the impression that this pronunciation of "aunt" is more common than any other distinctively New England dialect feature.
Then, you have the other "trap-bath-splittable words". Using [A]/[a] in these words is much less common, and it tends to be more associated with "classic" New England dialectal features like non-rhotacism and maintenance of the horse-hoarse distinction. Non-rhotacism seems to still be somewhat resilient in New England's urban areas, but trap-bath splitting and horse-hoarse distinguishing are both in rapid decline. You'll still hear a considerable share of trap-bath-splitters here in the Worcester area, but most of them seem to be over 50.
Trap-bath-splitting, in New Englanders who have it, can be very variable, and the set of "trap-bath-splittable words" is generally smaller in New England than in RP. (For instance, I've never heard anyone round here say [dAns]/[dans] for "dance".) Some of the most notable examples that you will hear in New England are "bath", "path", "rather", and "ask".
One reliable trap-bath splitter that pops to mind for me is Jerry Remy, a popular sports commentator who covers Red Sox games - he always pronounces "ask" as [ask]. I think Emeril Lagasse exhibits some trap-bath splitting too.
In my dialect "swath" and "waft" both use [Q].
As for their pronunciation of [A] by most North American English speakers, I think that rather than being cases of trap-bath splitting ([{]->[A]), they would be examples of the father-bother merger ([Q]->[A]), along with other "wa-" words like "watch" and "Watt" that use [Q] in RP.
<<Apparently in a few places in New England there are some more words in the 'broad-A' class (since especially coastal New England was in relatively frequent contact with Britain it picked up a few developments in British English such as the 'broad A' and loss of rhoticity which postdated North American colonization) but apparently that feature is now overall recessive in New England. Lazar might be able to comment further on that.>>
My pleasure. ;-) Well the thing is, in New England you have the special case of the word "aunt", and then you have a whole bunch of other "trap-bath-splittable words".
Pronouncing "aunt" as [Ant] seems to be practically universal around here. I had high school classmates who otherwise didn't have much of a New England accent (they'd sometimes be completely rhotic, and Mary-merry-marry merged), and who would have no other trace of the trap-bath split in their speech, but who would still pronounce "aunt" as [Ant].
I get the impression that this pronunciation of "aunt" is more common than any other distinctively New England dialect feature.
Then, you have the other "trap-bath-splittable words". Using [A]/[a] in these words is much less common, and it tends to be more associated with "classic" New England dialectal features like non-rhotacism and maintenance of the horse-hoarse distinction. Non-rhotacism seems to still be somewhat resilient in New England's urban areas, but trap-bath splitting and horse-hoarse distinguishing are both in rapid decline. You'll still hear a considerable share of trap-bath-splitters here in the Worcester area, but most of them seem to be over 50.
Trap-bath-splitting, in New Englanders who have it, can be very variable, and the set of "trap-bath-splittable words" is generally smaller in New England than in RP. (For instance, I've never heard anyone round here say [dAns]/[dans] for "dance".) Some of the most notable examples that you will hear in New England are "bath", "path", "rather", and "ask".
One reliable trap-bath splitter that pops to mind for me is Jerry Remy, a popular sports commentator who covers Red Sox games - he always pronounces "ask" as [ask]. I think Emeril Lagasse exhibits some trap-bath splitting too.
>>As for their pronunciation of [A] by most North American English speakers, I think that rather than being cases of trap-bath splitting ([{]->[A]), they would be examples of the father-bother merger ([Q]->[A]), along with other "wa-" words like "watch" and "Watt" that use [Q] in RP.<<
Words like these are examples of where the father-bother merger in my dialect is not "clean", that is, where historical [Q] is merged to [O] instead of the [a] (historical [A]) normally merged to in my dialect. Hence I have "watch" and "Watt" being [wOtS] and [wO?] even though I have "bother" as ["ba:DR=].
Words like these are examples of where the father-bother merger in my dialect is not "clean", that is, where historical [Q] is merged to [O] instead of the [a] (historical [A]) normally merged to in my dialect. Hence I have "watch" and "Watt" being [wOtS] and [wO?] even though I have "bother" as ["ba:DR=].
That said, I myself wonder about NAE dialects lacking a "clean" father-bother merger, that is, ones where, instead of an actual merger of historical /Q/ with some other phoneme, historical /Q/ is split between historical /A/ and /O/, and not just in the well-known limited cases of words like "sorrow" versus "sorry" either. It is probably unlikely that such a split is at all close to unique to this area. However, as I have no materials on hand that would really say much about such, so does anyone have any info on such?
<<In my dialect "swath" and "waft" both use [Q].
As for their pronunciation of [A] by most North American English speakers, I think that rather than being cases of trap-bath splitting ([{]->[A]), they would be examples of the father-bother merger ([Q]->[A]), along with other "wa-" words like "watch" and "Watt" that use [Q] in RP. >>
Oh interesting. That makes sense.
<<Non-rhotacism seems to still be somewhat resilient in New England's urban areas, but trap-bath splitting and horse-hoarse distinguishing are both in rapid decline. You'll still hear a considerable share of trap-bath-splitters here in the Worcester area, but most of them seem to be over 50. >>
Yeah I've read that both of those features are now recessive in New England.
<<I get the impression that this pronunciation of "aunt" is more common than any other distinctively New England dialect feature. >>
Yeah even when I've New Englanders which didn't have noticeably strong regional New England accents they always have pronounced "aunt" as [Ant].
<<Words like these are examples of where the father-bother merger in my dialect is not "clean", that is, where historical [Q] is merged to [O] instead of the [a] (historical [A]) normally merged to in my dialect. Hence I have "watch" and "Watt" being [wOtS] and [wO?] even though I have "bother" as ["ba:DR=]. >>
I bet that's because /w/ has often had a rounding influence upon the following vowel in English. Thus it's not surprising that some dialects, even while getting rid of historical /Q/, might transform historical to /wQ/ to /wO/ in some cases. Of course not all dialects do that (I have [wAtS] for "watch" and [wAt] for "Watt") but it is a possibility. The only time I have [wO]- is when I have /wor\/- words, like "war" [wOr\] "Warren" ["wOr\In] or "wharf" [wOr\f].
Travis and Lazar, what do you have for "won" (as in "won-ton," not the past tense of "win") "wand" "wont" or "want?"
As for their pronunciation of [A] by most North American English speakers, I think that rather than being cases of trap-bath splitting ([{]->[A]), they would be examples of the father-bother merger ([Q]->[A]), along with other "wa-" words like "watch" and "Watt" that use [Q] in RP. >>
Oh interesting. That makes sense.
<<Non-rhotacism seems to still be somewhat resilient in New England's urban areas, but trap-bath splitting and horse-hoarse distinguishing are both in rapid decline. You'll still hear a considerable share of trap-bath-splitters here in the Worcester area, but most of them seem to be over 50. >>
Yeah I've read that both of those features are now recessive in New England.
<<I get the impression that this pronunciation of "aunt" is more common than any other distinctively New England dialect feature. >>
Yeah even when I've New Englanders which didn't have noticeably strong regional New England accents they always have pronounced "aunt" as [Ant].
<<Words like these are examples of where the father-bother merger in my dialect is not "clean", that is, where historical [Q] is merged to [O] instead of the [a] (historical [A]) normally merged to in my dialect. Hence I have "watch" and "Watt" being [wOtS] and [wO?] even though I have "bother" as ["ba:DR=]. >>
I bet that's because /w/ has often had a rounding influence upon the following vowel in English. Thus it's not surprising that some dialects, even while getting rid of historical /Q/, might transform historical to /wQ/ to /wO/ in some cases. Of course not all dialects do that (I have [wAtS] for "watch" and [wAt] for "Watt") but it is a possibility. The only time I have [wO]- is when I have /wor\/- words, like "war" [wOr\] "Warren" ["wOr\In] or "wharf" [wOr\f].
Travis and Lazar, what do you have for "won" (as in "won-ton," not the past tense of "win") "wand" "wont" or "want?"
I myself have:
"won-ton" : ["wO~nt_ha~:n]
"wand" : ["wO~:nd_0]
"wont" : ["wO~n?]
"want" : ["wO~n?]
The thing is that these are not the only places where my dialect merges /Q/ to /O/ rather than /A/ (present /a/), as shown by my conditional merger before /l/ (present /L\/) based on syllable closedness.
And then, they still really don't explain why [O] seems to often show up in some words like "block" where historical /Q/ was present even though I normally use [a] in such places when using a reading voice.
"won-ton" : ["wO~nt_ha~:n]
"wand" : ["wO~:nd_0]
"wont" : ["wO~n?]
"want" : ["wO~n?]
The thing is that these are not the only places where my dialect merges /Q/ to /O/ rather than /A/ (present /a/), as shown by my conditional merger before /l/ (present /L\/) based on syllable closedness.
And then, they still really don't explain why [O] seems to often show up in some words like "block" where historical /Q/ was present even though I normally use [a] in such places when using a reading voice.
As for "block", it seems that such is actually tied to a particular word-class, examples of which include:
"block"
"blond"
"lock"
"flop"
"lop"
"plop"
"lot"
It seems to possibly be tied to historical /Q/ being preceded by /l/, which must have influenced it in at least some dialects to shift to /O/ rather than /A/ (present /a/).
However, such actually is not certain, now that I have realized that I cannot think of a single word historically starting with /lA/ in any dialects ancestral to that here after Middle English and before the father-bother merger. So it could very well be possible that such is just a general shift of /A/ (historical) or /a/ (present) here after /l/ (historical) or /L\/ (present), and is only incidentally related to historical /Q/.
As for why it is coexisting with /a/ in the present dialect, if this is really due to a conditional shift of /Q/, that may very well be tied to register or to two different forms from different sources competing with each other. On the other hand, it may be due to a more recent shifting of /a/ which may still be active and may not always fully be applied, based on register and stress.
"block"
"blond"
"lock"
"flop"
"lop"
"plop"
"lot"
It seems to possibly be tied to historical /Q/ being preceded by /l/, which must have influenced it in at least some dialects to shift to /O/ rather than /A/ (present /a/).
However, such actually is not certain, now that I have realized that I cannot think of a single word historically starting with /lA/ in any dialects ancestral to that here after Middle English and before the father-bother merger. So it could very well be possible that such is just a general shift of /A/ (historical) or /a/ (present) here after /l/ (historical) or /L\/ (present), and is only incidentally related to historical /Q/.
As for why it is coexisting with /a/ in the present dialect, if this is really due to a conditional shift of /Q/, that may very well be tied to register or to two different forms from different sources competing with each other. On the other hand, it may be due to a more recent shifting of /a/ which may still be active and may not always fully be applied, based on register and stress.
I was about to go and dismiss this as just being due to a present-day or recent vowel shifting of /a/ (or /A/), but I did find one word that, while having /a/ today, clearly never had such as descended from historical /Q/, which happened to be the nonsense word "lalalala...". The matter here is that it always has a clear [a] and sounds plain wrong with any kind of back or rounded vowel, unlike the other words I had listed above in my previous post.
This helps show that this is not just a general present-day phonological process, and even if it did operate on /a/ (or /A/), such would have to predate when said word came to be, and could not be active at the present, thus dismissing the idea that variation was merely due to register, stress, and other such things.
This helps show that this is not just a general present-day phonological process, and even if it did operate on /a/ (or /A/), such would have to predate when said word came to be, and could not be active at the present, thus dismissing the idea that variation was merely due to register, stress, and other such things.
<<Travis and Lazar, what do you have for "won" (as in "won-ton," not the past tense of "win") "wand" "wont" or "want?">>
For "wont" I usually have [w7Unt], but for all those other words I use [Q]:
won-ton - ["wQn%t_hQn]
wand - [wQnd]
want - [wQnt]
Pretty much any "wa-" word will have [Q] in my dialect:
wall - [wQ5]
water - [wQ4@`]
watch - [wQts]
Watt - [wQt]
Wallace - ["wQ5@s]
Occurrences of [wA] are pretty rare for me. The only one that pops to mind at the moment is "suave" [swAv].
For "wont" I usually have [w7Unt], but for all those other words I use [Q]:
won-ton - ["wQn%t_hQn]
wand - [wQnd]
want - [wQnt]
Pretty much any "wa-" word will have [Q] in my dialect:
wall - [wQ5]
water - [wQ4@`]
watch - [wQts]
Watt - [wQt]
Wallace - ["wQ5@s]
Occurrences of [wA] are pretty rare for me. The only one that pops to mind at the moment is "suave" [swAv].
>>Occurrences of [wA] are pretty rare for me. The only one that pops to mind at the moment is "suave" [swAv].<<
I can actually think of a number of other words which have [wa] in my dialect besides "suave" : [swa:v_0], them being:
"wad" : ["wa:d_0]
"waddle" : ["wa:dL\=]
"waffle" : ["wa:fL\=]
"quantity" : ["k_hw_0a~4~I%4i:] (still phonemically /wa/)
"quad" : ["k_hw_0a:d_0] (still phonemically /wa/)
any words with the prefix "quadr-" : ["k_hw_0a:dZr\] (still phonemically /wa/)
I can actually think of a number of other words which have [wa] in my dialect besides "suave" : [swa:v_0], them being:
"wad" : ["wa:d_0]
"waddle" : ["wa:dL\=]
"waffle" : ["wa:fL\=]
"quantity" : ["k_hw_0a~4~I%4i:] (still phonemically /wa/)
"quad" : ["k_hw_0a:d_0] (still phonemically /wa/)
any words with the prefix "quadr-" : ["k_hw_0a:dZr\] (still phonemically /wa/)
Note, though, that in practically all the examples listed above by myself, there may be alternation between [a] and [O], with the latter probably being more favored in increasingly informal registers.
<<As for why it is coexisting with /a/ in the present dialect, if this is really due to a conditional shift of /Q/, that may very well be tied to register or to two different forms from different sources competing with each other. On the other hand, it may be due to a more recent shifting of /a/ which may still be active and may not always fully be applied, based on register and stress. >>
That's very interesting. I found it somewhat striking that you have two different vowels in "wonton" (my ["wAnt_hAn]).
<<For "wont" I usually have [w7Unt], but for all those other words I use [Q]: >>
[w7Unt] for "wont?!" I doubt it. I mean "wont" as in "he is wont to go to the store only on Tuesdays," not "won't." :)
<<I can actually think of a number of other words which have [wa] in my dialect besides "suave" : [swa:v_0], them being:
"wad" : ["wa:d_0]
"waddle" : ["wa:dL\=]
"waffle" : ["wa:fL\=]
"quantity" : ["k_hw_0a~4~I%4i:] (still phonemically /wa/)
"quad" : ["k_hw_0a:d_0] (still phonemically /wa/)
any words with the prefix "quadr-" : ["k_hw_0a:dZr\] (still phonemically /wa/)>>
Haha it gets even harder to explain yours then!
That's very interesting. I found it somewhat striking that you have two different vowels in "wonton" (my ["wAnt_hAn]).
<<For "wont" I usually have [w7Unt], but for all those other words I use [Q]: >>
[w7Unt] for "wont?!" I doubt it. I mean "wont" as in "he is wont to go to the store only on Tuesdays," not "won't." :)
<<I can actually think of a number of other words which have [wa] in my dialect besides "suave" : [swa:v_0], them being:
"wad" : ["wa:d_0]
"waddle" : ["wa:dL\=]
"waffle" : ["wa:fL\=]
"quantity" : ["k_hw_0a~4~I%4i:] (still phonemically /wa/)
"quad" : ["k_hw_0a:d_0] (still phonemically /wa/)
any words with the prefix "quadr-" : ["k_hw_0a:dZr\] (still phonemically /wa/)>>
Haha it gets even harder to explain yours then!