Actually, I think most linguists attribute it to a random change in the language (well, its rules aren't random but the fact that it's around probably doesn't have to do with immigration or anything). You're right that it happened in South East England in the 1700-1800s, and as North America had been settled earlier than the change, it never really caught on in North America. However, Australia and New Zealand were largely settled and populated during and after the period where the change had occurred, so it's not surprising that the so-called "long-A" [A] for those words exists in Antipodean English. However, there is even variation there as to which words have it and don't. I know, for example, that some Australian regions prefer a "short-A" sound in words like "dance" while others prefer the longer one, while I believe everyone has it in a word like "bath." There's a reason for this--the earliest initial change probably affected just /{/ followed by a small class of fricatives like /s/, /f/ and /T/ (so, words like "bath" and "after" were early converts to /A/) while somewhat later on some words followed by a nasal and a stop like "example" or "plant" came incorporated in the change as well. However, this second wave did not affect all speakers and areas that had the intial "bath" change, hence the variation in Australian English. If Australia had been settled a century later, the changes would have been complete in England and thus the settlers to Australia would've been far more likely to have the rule match up with current SE British usage, but since Australia was settled during the change some variation still exists as the full changes had not been completed in all speakers.
''bath'' and ''Mary''
The trap-bath split also occurs in Eastern New England, although it tends not to be as extensive as the version found in RP. For instance, I don't think "example" and "plant" would usually be included in the split here. But it's quite common to hear people (especially older people) from Worcester or Boston talking about walking down the [paT], taking a [baT], or [askIN] a question.
I should just make a note about the word "aunt". I guess you might include it in the trap-bath split, since ENE uses [ant] or [Ant] whereas most Americans use [{nt], but it seems to be somewhat of a separate phenomenon. The trap-bath split is generally limited to non-rhotic urban speakers, and thus only occurs for a minority of New Englanders, but it's essentially universal here to pronounce "aunt" as [ant] or [Ant]. I, for instance, pronounce it as [Ant], even though there are no other traces of the trap-bath split in my speech.
I should just make a note about the word "aunt". I guess you might include it in the trap-bath split, since ENE uses [ant] or [Ant] whereas most Americans use [{nt], but it seems to be somewhat of a separate phenomenon. The trap-bath split is generally limited to non-rhotic urban speakers, and thus only occurs for a minority of New Englanders, but it's essentially universal here to pronounce "aunt" as [ant] or [Ant]. I, for instance, pronounce it as [Ant], even though there are no other traces of the trap-bath split in my speech.
<<I, for instance, pronounce it as [Ant], even though there are no other traces of the trap-bath split in my speech.>>
Lazar, since in my accent ''bath'' is /be@T/ and ''trap'' is /tr{p/ would it make sense for me to say that I have the trap-bath split, or would that seem to imply using an RP-like sound in those words?
Lazar, since in my accent ''bath'' is /be@T/ and ''trap'' is /tr{p/ would it make sense for me to say that I have the trap-bath split, or would that seem to imply using an RP-like sound in those words?
''ant'' and ''aunt'' however, are both /e@nt/ for me even though I have different vowels for ''trap'' and ''bath''.
<<Lazar, since in my accent ''bath'' is /be@T/ and ''trap'' is /tr{p/ would it make sense for me to say that I have the trap-bath split, or would that seem to imply using an RP-like sound in those words?>>
No, even though "trap" and "bath" *have* split for you, the trap-bath split is understood to mean the phonemic shift from [{] to [A]/[a] that occurs in RP and ENE. The split that you have is generally referred to as æ-tensing.
No, even though "trap" and "bath" *have* split for you, the trap-bath split is understood to mean the phonemic shift from [{] to [A]/[a] that occurs in RP and ENE. The split that you have is generally referred to as æ-tensing.
Sorry, the "Guest" posting above was me.
<<''ant'' and ''aunt'' however, are both /e@nt/ for me even though I have different vowels for ''trap'' and ''bath''.>>
Yes, "ant" and "aunt" are usually the same in the New York accent.
<<''ant'' and ''aunt'' however, are both /e@nt/ for me even though I have different vowels for ''trap'' and ''bath''.>>
Yes, "ant" and "aunt" are usually the same in the New York accent.
<<''ant'' and ''aunt'' however, are both /e@nt/ for me even though I have different vowels for ''trap'' and ''bath''.>>
<<Yes, "ant" and "aunt" are usually the same in the New York accent.>>
I find that interesting, because in many ways æ-tensing and the RP style trap-bath split are very similar as to what words they affect, but as for the case of ''ant'' and ''aunt'' being pronounced the same in accents with æ-tensing (such as my own), they differ. Also, the split in my accent seems to be more extensive than the split in RP. ''can'' (able to) and ''can'' (the noun) for example, are distinct in my accent as /k{n/ and /ke@n/, while ''can't'' is /ke@nt/ and so has a different vowel than the ''can'' (able to) /k{n/.
<<Yes, "ant" and "aunt" are usually the same in the New York accent.>>
I find that interesting, because in many ways æ-tensing and the RP style trap-bath split are very similar as to what words they affect, but as for the case of ''ant'' and ''aunt'' being pronounced the same in accents with æ-tensing (such as my own), they differ. Also, the split in my accent seems to be more extensive than the split in RP. ''can'' (able to) and ''can'' (the noun) for example, are distinct in my accent as /k{n/ and /ke@n/, while ''can't'' is /ke@nt/ and so has a different vowel than the ''can'' (able to) /k{n/.
Back in late June of this year (2005) I visited Eton and my entry to the school grounds happened to coincide with the beginning of a guided tour. This was on the afternoon after the last day of class. Anyway, our guide was an elderly lady who had taught at Eton for 38 years. When we entered the chapel she referred to a painting depicting the Virgin Mary (she pronounced it "Marey"). The first syllable sounded identical to "mare" (the female horse). RP uses the "square" vowel where general American uses an "a" as in "trap" in words like Mary and Pharaoh. (This is acoording to J.C. Wells). I have, however, herad the word "marry" pronounced with the 'trap' vowel on an english lamguage cassette used by my greek cousin to learn english. The pronouncer is an RP speaking man (unless RP is not his native accent and he messed up the pronunciation of marry). I think RP distinguishes between Mary and marry and I've even been told by one English lady that "marry' is pronounced with the trap vowel. I don't thing Mary and marry are supposed to be homophones in RP. However, I would greatly appreciate it if someone sould clear this up for me. Thank you.
<<I think RP distinguishes between Mary and marry and I've even been told by one English lady that "marry' is pronounced with the trap vowel. I don't thing Mary and marry are supposed to be homophones in RP. However, I would greatly appreciate it if someone sould clear this up for me. Thank you.>>
Yes, in RP, "marry" would use the trap vowel, and "marry" and "Mary" would not be homophones.
Yes, in RP, "marry" would use the trap vowel, and "marry" and "Mary" would not be homophones.
"Mary" and "Marry" aren't homophones for me, so I'll agree with Lazar (RP shouldn't be that off from me).
"However, there is even variation there as to which words have it and don't. I know, for example, that some Australian regions prefer a "short-A" sound in words like "dance" while others prefer the longer one, while I believe everyone has it in a word like "bath." (Kirk)
They used to have stat distribution of this on Wikipedia but I can't find it.
Anyway, "long a" users are prevalent in South Australia. Settlement occurred in South Australia 1836 by free settlers. Other states don't use it so much, especially down the Eastern seaboard. These were earlier colonies (starting from 1788, convict colonies). I presume the shift from "short a" to "long a" occurred during this time in the UK.
Kirk - weren't the elite in the UK speaking with a "short a" and Cockney with "long a" and then the elite adopted the "long a"?
They used to have stat distribution of this on Wikipedia but I can't find it.
Anyway, "long a" users are prevalent in South Australia. Settlement occurred in South Australia 1836 by free settlers. Other states don't use it so much, especially down the Eastern seaboard. These were earlier colonies (starting from 1788, convict colonies). I presume the shift from "short a" to "long a" occurred during this time in the UK.
Kirk - weren't the elite in the UK speaking with a "short a" and Cockney with "long a" and then the elite adopted the "long a"?
<<They used to have stat distribution of this on Wikipedia but I can't find it.>>
Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_English_phonology#Variation_between_.2F.C3.A6.2F_and_.2Fa.CB.90.2F ;-)
Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_English_phonology#Variation_between_.2F.C3.A6.2F_and_.2Fa.CB.90.2F ;-)