I largely have the lot-cloth split, but I specifically lack it for "on" [a~:n] (while having it for "gone" [gQ~:n]), and as you can see, I am not consistent in whether I have it before /g/.
Words in -og
Previous page Pages: 1 2
As far as I know, on [Q:n] is limited to the South and AAVE, while gone [gA:n] is limited to New York (besides c-c merged speakers of course).
<<And Guest, I'm just curious, do you ever find that non-NCVS people confuse your PALM/LOT for their TRAP? (ie. you say 'stock' and they hear 'stack').>>
I'm from Northern England and a related thing has happened. I use to work in a clothing store and there once was an American customer that asked me where the "sacks" were. I thought he was looking for knapsacks or suitcases so I sent him to that area. I then later found out that he was looking for socks.
I'm from Northern England and a related thing has happened. I use to work in a clothing store and there once was an American customer that asked me where the "sacks" were. I thought he was looking for knapsacks or suitcases so I sent him to that area. I then later found out that he was looking for socks.
Yeah, a NCVS-influenced "socks" could sound very similar to Northern English "sacks".
<<Certain words that formerly had the LOT vowel have shifted to the THOUGHT vowel. It mostly only remains in the US. It occured before voiceless consonants in commonly spoken words. Many speakers also have it before -g, and in the words 'gone' and 'on'.>>
Well -- there's another split I don't have. Lot, cloth, thought, gone, on, dog, socks -- they all have the same vowel for me.
Well -- there's another split I don't have. Lot, cloth, thought, gone, on, dog, socks -- they all have the same vowel for me.
<<Well -- there's another split I don't have. Lot, cloth, thought, gone, on, dog, socks -- they all have the same vowel for me.>>
Sounds like you have the cot-caught merger. This is nearly universal throughout Canada and the West Coast, and very widespread in the Mid-West.
Sounds like you have the cot-caught merger. This is nearly universal throughout Canada and the West Coast, and very widespread in the Mid-West.
>> Sounds like you have the cot-caught merger. This is nearly universal throughout Canada and the West Coast, and very widespread in the Mid-West. <<
Not quite accurate. I would state it thusly: Sounds like you have the cot-caught merger. This is nearly universal throughout Canada and the entire Western and North Central US. The Midlands are transitionally cot-caught merged; the North does not have the cot-caught merger.
Not quite accurate. I would state it thusly: Sounds like you have the cot-caught merger. This is nearly universal throughout Canada and the entire Western and North Central US. The Midlands are transitionally cot-caught merged; the North does not have the cot-caught merger.
>>>> Sounds like you have the cot-caught merger. This is nearly universal throughout Canada and the West Coast, and very widespread in the Mid-West. <<
Not quite accurate. I would state it thusly: Sounds like you have the cot-caught merger. This is nearly universal throughout Canada and the entire Western and North Central US. The Midlands are transitionally cot-caught merged; the North does not have the cot-caught merger.<<
As for the Midwest, the cot-caught merger is only really present in Minnesota, North Dakota, and maybe the very western edge of Wisconsin; otherwise, the Midwest is cot-caught-unmerged. However, though, the NCVS is common in the Midwest, and it may mislead some into thinking that an individual is cot-caught-merged due to the shift [O] -> [A] occurring, even though no actual merger has occurred due to the shift [A] -> [a] occurring as well.
Not quite accurate. I would state it thusly: Sounds like you have the cot-caught merger. This is nearly universal throughout Canada and the entire Western and North Central US. The Midlands are transitionally cot-caught merged; the North does not have the cot-caught merger.<<
As for the Midwest, the cot-caught merger is only really present in Minnesota, North Dakota, and maybe the very western edge of Wisconsin; otherwise, the Midwest is cot-caught-unmerged. However, though, the NCVS is common in the Midwest, and it may mislead some into thinking that an individual is cot-caught-merged due to the shift [O] -> [A] occurring, even though no actual merger has occurred due to the shift [A] -> [a] occurring as well.
I forgot: I have also heard that the northern extreme of Wisconsin is cot-caught-merged as well.
There are always pockets of cot-caught merged areas in otherwise unmerged ones, and vice-versa. For example, I've read that San Fransisco is unmerged, whereas the rest of California is merged. The merger is spreading, I believe.
Previous page Pages: 1 2