Herb

Rick Johnson   Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:40 pm GMT
<<Why do the British pronounce the "h" in "herb" but Americans don't? Does anyone know how that difference came about?>>

I was pondering this very question while I was cooking my meal- I've just logged on and there is the question and a good answer on Adam's part!!
Kirk   Tue Nov 15, 2005 8:44 pm GMT
<<Kirk, I've heard that in some areas of the US they drop h's in words like human, humor. I pronounce them ["Cu:m@n] and ["Cu:m@`], but I've heard people from the h-dropping areas say ["ju:m@n] and ["ju:m@`].>>

Yes, in a few areas /hj/ is reduced to [j]. This especially occurs in New York City and some surrounding areas. I have a professor right now who's originally from NYC and he has ["jum@n] for "human" and ["jum@`] for "humor." However, this only applies to /hj/. All his other /h/ are realized as [h] in his speech.

<<Kirk: <i>The word came into English as [erb@], and by Early Modern English the pronunciation had evolved to [3`b]. [3`b] is still the pronunciation in America but due to the spelling pronunciation (and the dropping of rhotacism) it's [h3:b] in British English now.</i>

Not so! Not so! The word came into English as /ɛrbə/ (that's /Erb@/). This error isn't so heinous as English had no /e/ at the time, distinguishing /eː/ (feed) /ɛː/ (feat) /ɛ/ (fed).>>

I suspected it might've been a lax vowel but I wasn't sure--thanks for pointing it out. In any case I was highlighting the /h/, not the vowels :)

<<Towards the end of Early Modern English the pronunciation had evolved to /ərb/! (or /ɜrb/, as you prefer). It was most definitely not the rhoticised [ɜ`b] that you indicate! Rhoticising the vowel was a later American and (I believe) Irish phenomenon. There are still rhotic speakers alive today who pronounce the vowel and consonant separately. (In any case, I'm pretty sure the fern/fir/fur merger was later than "by Early Modern English", so that in earliest EMnE it was actually still /ɛrb/.)>>

By Early Modern English I was thinking around 1600 (Shakespearean English is classified as Early Modern and he died in 1616), and I believe around then is when the "fern/fir/fur" merger had either been completed or was mostly completed. If the change had occurred much later than 1600 (say, well into the 18th century) we might expect North American English not to have the merger. The fact that NAE is completely "fern/fir/fur" merged probably points to the fact that it was a largely completed phenomenon by the time North America was colonized by the English in the early 1600s.

<<Lastly, it's most definitely not [h3:b] in British English now. It's /hɜːb/ in English English (with the phonetic realisation varying between dialects). The North Irish, Scottish, Welsh and even south-west English (I think) still pronounce the R.>>

I'm aware the /r/ is still pronounced in many areas in the UK but for purposes of illustration I was referring to the nonrhotic varieties of "British English." (just like when I was referring to American English I was referring to rhotic varieties) I could've been more clear and stated that [h3:b] is the RP form and [3`b] is the General American form but you know what I meant :)
Jim   Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:13 am GMT
Guest,

"The word came into English as ... /Erb@/ ..." you say, as opposed to [erb@]. Are you not analysing Middle English according to GAE phonology? I pronounce what you call /E/ as [e] (and what you call /e/ as [{I]) ... and I speak post-Great-Vowel-Shift English. Note that "[erb@]" would be a phonetic transcription not a phonemic one. It may well have been [erb@] but that's not necessarily the same thing as GAE /erb@/. It may have been [Erb@] but perhaps [e] & [E] might have been allophones at the time anyway.
Jim   Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:15 am GMT
So, we use a spelling pronunciation (with the /h/). Yes, but before the word came into English it once did have a /h/: that's why it was spelt that way in the first place. So, who's right ... neither & both, of course.
Travis   Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:31 am GMT
>>Guest,

"The word came into English as ... /Erb@/ ..." you say, as opposed to [erb@]. Are you not analysing Middle English according to GAE phonology? I pronounce what you call /E/ as [e] (and what you call /e/ as [{I]) ... and I speak post-Great-Vowel-Shift English. Note that "[erb@]" would be a phonetic transcription not a phonemic one. It may well have been [erb@] but that's not necessarily the same thing as GAE /erb@/. It may have been [Erb@] but perhaps [e] & [E] might have been allophones at the time anyway.<<

Just for the record, Guest was speaking about Middle English and Early Modern English phonology here, not how you might happen to pronounce something today, so that you might pronounce what is /E/ in GAE as [e] and what is /e/ in GAE as [{I] is sort of irrelevant here. And as for allophony in Middle English, I think that it is somewhat useless to speculate about such at this point, especially because /E/, /E:/ and /e:/ are marking Middle English *phonemes*, not phones, here.
Kirk   Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:51 am GMT
<<So, we use a spelling pronunciation (with the /h/). Yes, but before the word came into English it once did have a /h/: that's why it was spelt that way in the first place. So, who's right ... neither & both, of course.>>

Actually, the word was commonly spelled without an "h" even in Old French (when the word came into English) since it was not pronounced, but the "h" was later reintroduced in French spelling there since scribes wanted to reflect its earlier state (much earlier---as in over a millennium before Old French when it was just a dialect of Latin. The same has happened in some Spanish words, with reintroduced orthographical "h" despite the fact that no one's pronounced it for the better part of 2 millenia). Also, as you hint, this being a question of "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant since native speakers in different places use both forms. The American pronunciation does reflect an older (16th-17th century) British pronunciation of the word but that doesn't mean the British form is "wrong"--to asset that would be ridiculous.
Kirk   Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:53 am GMT
<<asset>>

"assert," there, sorry.
Jim   Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:39 am GMT
Travis,

No, I not trying to say that how I happen to pronounce things is relevant: I don't speak Middle English or Early Modern English. I was just trying to give an example of how [e] need not be GAE /e/ i.e. the vowel in "day". Sure, "/E/, /E:/ and /e:/ are marking Middle English *phonemes*, not phones, here." but Kirk's transcription used [e] not /E/, /E:/ or /e:/.