Book and buck, look and luck

Rick Johnson   Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:25 pm GMT
For me these words are homophones. Just wondering if this was the same for anyone else?!
Chris   Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:53 pm GMT
Nope, quite distinct for me. So do you pronounce them both as "buck" or "book"?
Rick Johnson   Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:21 pm GMT
I'm Northern English so buck and luck are pronounced as they are spelt. Some people where I live pronounce the words book and look in a way which rhymes with luke. This, however, became stigmatized decades ago, so many people switched pronunciation, so "look" became the same as "luck".

Southern England and Australia don't have this problem as an 18th century vowel shift moved most "U" sounds to have a higher more "A" like sound, the original "U" sound is still used in some cases in words like full, good and, of course, book and look. Flood, however, is pronounced as fl^d. Sugar also maintains the original vowel sound because otherwise it would sound too much like shagger.

For me percussion and cushion have exactly the same "U" sound but in Southern England they are quite distinct- perc^ssion and cUshion.
Uriel   Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:27 am GMT
<<For me these words are homophones.>>

I always knew you were a strange one, Rick! :p

No, book and look rhyme for me, but buck and luck are a different rhyming pair. And percussion and cushion are very different for me.
Mike   Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:52 pm GMT
actually, I heard a bunch of americans pronouncing "book" as "buck".
Jim   Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:24 pm GMT
Odd that you'd call a feature of your own dialect a "problem". When you say "higher" what do you mean? Those familiar with the IPA vowel chart would call it lower. Interesting theory as to why "sugar" escaped the split (yes, there really was one just as Nick reports).
Rick Johnson   Sat Apr 29, 2006 5:49 pm GMT
<<Odd that you'd call a feature of your own dialect a "problem".>>

For the most part talking to other British people or N Americans it isn't really a problem. However, there have been a number of times when I have spoken to Australians and they have struggled with my pronunciation of hut and bug as they are more used to hearing h^t and b^g. Usually they will repeat my pronunciation and ask me what one is- they genuinely haven't understood what I have said!
Guest   Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:20 am GMT
You apparently use two sounds only for "luck", "look" and "Luke", while other versions of English employ three distinct sounds for the three words, which works very well. Why not do it?
Kirk   Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:28 am GMT
<<They might be homophones in Cockney but not standard English. I've noticed on British television comedies that Cockneys pronounce the word 'love' like lOOv instead of luhv.>>

Cockney is not known for lack of "foot-strut" split, since it's a solidly Southern British dialect/sociolect. Also, just because you hear someone use "lOOv" for what you pronounce "luhv" doesn't mean they also pronounce, say, "loo" the same way. In terms of phonemic contrasts you can't tell if someone is merged or split until you hear enough examples of words in different contexts.

<<actually, I heard a bunch of americans pronouncing "book" as "buck".>>

Yeah, that vowel sound has been centralizing in some American accents, such as Californian English. However, that doesn't mean "book" is merging with "buck." Since "book" is encroaching on where "buck" used to be, "buck" is also moving (towards the front of the mouth). Thus, a progressive speaker of the Californian English may pronounce what some others would hear as "buck" but if you listen you'll hear that the Californian's actual "buck" wouldn't have the same vowel as "book."
Travis   Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:11 am GMT
>><<actually, I heard a bunch of americans pronouncing "book" as "buck".>>

Yeah, that vowel sound has been centralizing in some American accents, such as Californian English. However, that doesn't mean "book" is merging with "buck." Since "book" is encroaching on where "buck" used to be, "buck" is also moving (towards the front of the mouth). Thus, a progressive speaker of the Californian English may pronounce what some others would hear as "buck" but if you listen you'll hear that the Californian's actual "buck" wouldn't have the same vowel as "book."<<

Up here, instead, [V] (as in GAE "buck") seems to actually be quite often shifted significantly towards or actually to [A] (as in GAE "balm"), such that it and [O] switch places with respect to height. Note though that this does not entail any vowel merger, as historical [A] has already been fronted to [a] (as I have mentioned many times before).

Contrary to what I have said before, such seems to actually be rather widespread in informal speech here, and practically universal in what is usually written "umm". It just seems that my own speech is actually rather conservative with respect to such, and thus such only shows up in it in very informal speech, as shown by how I normally use [V] in such positions with the exception of "umm", and yet when speaking to my girlfriend many common grammar words which would usually have [V] just automatically shift to having [A] instead.
Guest   Sun Apr 30, 2006 1:18 pm GMT
So do you pronounce fack/buck like this? http://www.webgeordie.co.uk/borat/sounds/backs.mp3
Lazar   Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:36 pm GMT
<<They might be homophones in Cockney but not standard English. I've noticed on British television comedies that Cockneys pronounce the word 'love' like lOOv instead of luhv.>>

I'll second Kirk - that is definitely not a feature of Cockney English. In Cockney, "book" and "buck" would be clearly distinct as [bUk] and [b6k]. I too have heard a lot of people on British television who lack the foot-strut split, but I'm pretty sure they'd be from Northern England, not London.
Kelly   Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:19 pm GMT
''Up here, instead, [V] (as in GAE "buck") seems to actually be quite often shifted significantly towards or actually to [A] (as in GAE "balm"), ''

So, in your accent, sucks and socks can both be [sAks]?
Travis   Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:36 pm GMT
>>So, in your accent, sucks and socks can both be [sAks]?<<

No, as "socks" is already [saks] due to the shifting of historical [A] to [a].

Furthermore, my own particular idiolect is actually rather conservative here, in that it normally preserves [V] as is except in "umm", and even in very informal speech primarily shifts just common grammar words and like from [V] to [A].

The main thing is just from overhearing many younger individuals here, many such individuals do seem to have a generalized shift of [V] significantly towards or to [A] across the board, such that "sucks" and "socks" would actually become [sAks] and [saks] respectively.
Travis   Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:23 pm GMT
Actually, there seem to be other cases where I will have [V] move to [A] or at least become lower than [O], such as "fuck" and "sucks". Of course then, that still falls under less stressed and more informal usages tending to move more towards [A] than others. Also grammar words such as "what" and "but" may still have [V] move lower than [O] but not actually become [A] in merely informal speech in my idiolect, it seems as well.