Home: Forum: English: "kiln"

"kiln"

Josh Lalonde   Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:18 am GMT

<<I tend to insert an [r\] in "wash" which comes out as something like "warsh" [wOr\S]. Likewise, "washington" is [wOr\SInt@n]. I have no idea where this comes from.>> That happens in the Ottawa Valley too, but not in the city of Ottawa itself. I think it originates in a hyper-correction in response to non-rhoticism.

Jim H.   Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:24 am GMT

What seems really odd about this [wOr\S] thing for "wash" to me, is that not only is a [r\] inserted, but also the vowel is altered. "wash" without the [r\] tends to be [wAS].

Jim H.   Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:42 am GMT

Is Ottawa pronounced [A4.@.w@]?

Travis   Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:46 am GMT

I myself have ["wR=:M:] for "whorl", for the record.

Jim H.   Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:57 am GMT

<<I myself have ["wR=:M:] for "whorl", for the record.>> You wouldn't happen to be from the Upper Midwest, would you?

Lazar   Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:34 am GMT

I've been wondering about the pronunciation of Ottawa as well. Is it more common in Canada to hear ["Q4@w@]/["A4@w@] or ["Q4@wQ]/["A4@wA]?

Travis   Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:08 am GMT

>>You wouldn't happen to be from the Upper Midwest, would you?<< I most definitely am from the Upper Midwest, I have to say.

Josh Lalonde   Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:26 am GMT

I pronounce it ["Q:41w6]. This is the normal way of saying it here (or with [A]). <<What seems really odd about this [wOr\S] thing for "wash" to me, is that not only is a [r\] inserted, but also the vowel is altered. "wash" without the [r\] tends to be [wAS].>> Presumably the r-insertion happened before LOT-unrounding in your accent. Many Americans have their THOUGHT vowel in words that have /wQ/ in RP, like 'wash', 'water', 'Washington' etc. and these are the same kind of words that favour r-insertion. So even though you have a change from [A] to [Or\], etymologically it's the less drastic [Q] to [Or\] (or possibly [Q] to [O] to [Or\].

Travis   Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:45 am GMT

>>What seems really odd about this [wOr\S] thing for "wash" to me, is that not only is a [r\] inserted, but also the vowel is altered. "wash" without the [r\] tends to be [wAS].<< Mind you that non-cot-caught merged North American English dialects very often have some analogue of historical /O:/ in "wash", such being [Q] here. You should also remember that in many NAE dialects which are horse-hoarse or Marry-merry-marry merged, the resulting merged vowel is between [O] and [o] and [E] and [e] respectively. Consequently, having an [r\] inserted would very likely have resulted in the raising of the vowel in "wash" provided it occurred before the horse-hoarse merger. >>Presumably the r-insertion happened before LOT-unrounding in your accent. Many Americans have their THOUGHT vowel in words that have /wQ/ in RP, like 'wash', 'water', 'Washington' etc. and these are the same kind of words that favour r-insertion. So even though you have a change from [A] to [Or\], etymologically it's the less drastic [Q] to [Or\] (or possibly [Q] to [O] to [Or\].<< Remember that LOT-unrounding in very many North American English dialects did not occur after /w/, and instead merger with /O:/ rather than /A:/ occurred in such positions in many words, "wash" being one of them. Also, I doubt that there is actually a change from [A] to [Or\] occurring here, and rather that the form with [Or\] is actually conserving rounding which has been lost in the form with [A].

Jim H.   Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:24 pm GMT

<<Presumably the r-insertion happened before LOT-unrounding in your accent. Many Americans have their THOUGHT vowel in words that have /wQ/ in RP, like 'wash', 'water', 'Washington' etc. and these are the same kind of words that favour r-insertion. So even though you have a change from [A] to [Or\], etymologically it's the less drastic [Q] to [Or\] (or possibly [Q] to [O] to [Or\].>> I do not have the THOUGHT vowel after /w/ except in the word "walk" which is [wAUk] for me. Anyway, the vowel I have in THOUGHT sounds nothing like that vowel in have in "wash" [wOr\S].

Travis   Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:40 pm GMT

One thing I should point out is that I have heard people at least here who round /a/ (historical /A:/) before /r/ when it is not followed by a fortis obstruent (where then it is raised to [V]) to [Q]; however, such does not involve any raising, though, only involving backing and rounding.

Jim H.   Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:13 pm GMT

<<One thing I should point out is that I have heard people at least here who round /a/ (historical /A:/) before /r/ when it is not followed by a fortis obstruent>> I have [a] before [r\] in "fire" [far\], this contrast with the [A] I have in "far" [fAr\]. I have both vowels before [r\].

Jim H.   Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:02 am GMT

How is "Lalonde" pronounced? Is it [l@lAndeI]? [l@lAndi]? [l@lAnd], [l{l@nd], [l{l@ndeI], [l{l@ndi].

Josh Lalonde   Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:36 am GMT

<<How is "Lalonde" pronounced? Is it [l@lAndeI]? [l@lAndi]? [l@lAnd], [l{l@nd], [l{l@ndeI], [l{l@ndi].>> None of the above actually. In French, it's pronounce [la"lO~d], but in English I use a sort of compromise pronunciation [la"lo:nd] or [la"lo:~d]. A lot of Anglophones seem to have trouble with this and say [l6"lQ:nd] or [l6"lA:nd]. From what I know of your accent, [l{"loUnd] would be the closest realization for you.

Guest   Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:05 am GMT

<<I do not have the THOUGHT vowel after /w/ except in the word "walk" which is [wAUk] for me. Anyway, the vowel I have in THOUGHT sounds nothing like that vowel in have in "wash" [wOr\S].>> If you had the THOUGHT vowel in "walk" it'd be [wOk] rather than [wAUk].