"kiln"

>>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].

<<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].

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.

<<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\].

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

<<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].

How do you all pronounce "figure"? I have [fIgr\=].

I say ["fIgj@`] for both the noun and the verb.

I formally pronounce both the noun and the verb "figure" as ["fI:gjR=:], but in actual everyday speech I use the more conservative pronunciation ["fI:gR=:] (rhotics aside) for the verb "figure".

I'm from Scotland myself and I say [kI5] for "kiln".

Thanks for your participation.

I don't understand. Josh said L is very light in Canada.
Yet, the linguistic data suggest that light L is rarely vocalized in any language/dialect - dark L is normally vocalized.

Growing up in the American South, I never heard the "n" pronounced in "kiln." OTOH, the "r" was always there in "wash," and "rinse" was pronounced as if it ended in "ch." It's worth noting that Southern speech patterns tend to be very conservative and often mirror earlier British and Irish usage. BTW, I'll be 68 in a few months...