<<It's a perfectly cromulent word.>>
Haha. Nice Simpsons reference ;)
Haha. Nice Simpsons reference ;)
"Hour" and "our" homophones?
Previous page Pages: 1 2
That's interesting. I guess "ow" i.e. /æO/ is an Aussie thing like I'd thought. Or I s'pose I should say Aussie & Kiwi thing.
I'd been aware of the "ar" pronunciation but didn't know it was so wide spread. It's also interesting that people switch between having "our" homophonous with "are" and with "hour"
On a completely different note, Jim and other Australians: Giving your first impressions, do you have a difference in the vowel in the words
Felix,
I'd have to say "pool", "mule", "pool", "poo", "pew", "jewel", "dual", "during", "jury" and "curious" all have the same (first) vowel, /}:/ at least on a phonemic level though with coarticulation and all the actual phonetic realisation of these is variable.
As for "cure", "fewer", "sewer", "lure", "tour" and "(en)dure" they all rhyme. I'd say I pronounce them as two-syllable words with /}:.@/ i.e. [}:.w@] (with the linking [w] between vowels).
Yes, the vowels in "bowl" and "boat" and "bode" are all phonetically different for me but are allophones.
I'd been aware of the "ar" pronunciation but didn't know it was so wide spread. It's also interesting that people switch between having "our" homophonous with "are" and with "hour"
On a completely different note, Jim and other Australians: Giving your first impressions, do you have a difference in the vowel in the words
Felix,
I'd have to say "pool", "mule", "pool", "poo", "pew", "jewel", "dual", "during", "jury" and "curious" all have the same (first) vowel, /}:/ at least on a phonemic level though with coarticulation and all the actual phonetic realisation of these is variable.
As for "cure", "fewer", "sewer", "lure", "tour" and "(en)dure" they all rhyme. I'd say I pronounce them as two-syllable words with /}:.@/ i.e. [}:.w@] (with the linking [w] between vowels).
Yes, the vowels in "bowl" and "boat" and "bode" are all phonetically different for me but are allophones.
Jim, you pronounce "pool" and "poo" with the exact same vowel? I'm talking about at a phonetic level, not a phonemic one. So you're one of the people say "pool" more like [p}:5], not as [pU:5]?
In most dialects of NAE, "hour" rhymes with "power" and "our" rhymes with "star".
When I sing, though, "hour" and "our" sound alike, but I don't use the "ow" sound or the "ar" sound. The sound is like "ow" but is less nasal and more rounded.
When I sing, though, "hour" and "our" sound alike, but I don't use the "ow" sound or the "ar" sound. The sound is like "ow" but is less nasal and more rounded.
<<As for "cure", "fewer", "sewer", "lure", "tour" and "(en)dure" they all rhyme.>>
For me, fewer and sewer rhyme only with each other (and have 2 syllables); lure, tour, and endure are a different rhyming group, and cure (like pure) is all by its lonesome.
For me, fewer and sewer rhyme only with each other (and have 2 syllables); lure, tour, and endure are a different rhyming group, and cure (like pure) is all by its lonesome.
<<For me, fewer and sewer rhyme only with each other (and have 2 syllables);>>
For me they rhyme, but aren't strict minimal pairs, as "fewer" has /j/ while "sewer" doesn't. I assume it's the same for Uriel. I pronounce them:
"fewer" ["fjM.@`]
"sewer" [sM.@`]
<<lure, tour, and endure are a different rhyming group, and cure (like pure) is all by its lonesome.>>
For me those words are:
"lure" [l3`]
"tour" [t_hM@`]
"endure" [In"d3`]
"cure" [kj3`]
"pure" [pj3`]
I have leveling of historical /-u@r/ to /3r/ --> [3`] in most cases, as is common for many varieties of NAE.
For me they rhyme, but aren't strict minimal pairs, as "fewer" has /j/ while "sewer" doesn't. I assume it's the same for Uriel. I pronounce them:
"fewer" ["fjM.@`]
"sewer" [sM.@`]
<<lure, tour, and endure are a different rhyming group, and cure (like pure) is all by its lonesome.>>
For me those words are:
"lure" [l3`]
"tour" [t_hM@`]
"endure" [In"d3`]
"cure" [kj3`]
"pure" [pj3`]
I have leveling of historical /-u@r/ to /3r/ --> [3`] in most cases, as is common for many varieties of NAE.
<<Since "our" is a short, usually unstressed function word, many dialects have simplified the historic disyllabic /aU@(r)/ into a monosyllable, resulting in "ar" or "ow". From what I've read and heard, "ow" seems to be rather Australia-specific.>>
Lazar,
For me, ''our'' is monosyllabic, but doesn't sound like ''ow'' or ''ar''. ''our'' is more like /aUr/ [aU@`] (a triphthong) for me, and contrasts with ''hour'' which is bisyllabic /aU@`/ [aU.@`] for me.
For me, ''our'' rhymes with ''flour'', ''sour'' and ''dour'', and ''hour'' rhymes with ''power'', ''shower'' and ''flower''.
Lazar,
For me, ''our'' is monosyllabic, but doesn't sound like ''ow'' or ''ar''. ''our'' is more like /aUr/ [aU@`] (a triphthong) for me, and contrasts with ''hour'' which is bisyllabic /aU@`/ [aU.@`] for me.
For me, ''our'' rhymes with ''flour'', ''sour'' and ''dour'', and ''hour'' rhymes with ''power'', ''shower'' and ''flower''.
<<For me, ''our'' is monosyllabic, but doesn't sound like ''ow'' or ''ar''. ''our'' is more like /aUr/ [aU@`] (a triphthong) for me, and contrasts with ''hour'' which is bisyllabic /aU@`/ [aU.@`] for me.
For me, ''our'' rhymes with ''flour'', ''sour'' and ''dour'', and ''hour'' rhymes with ''power'', ''shower'' and ''flower''.>>
Yeah, in some dialects a distinction is still preserved between disyllabic [aU.@`] and triphthongal [aU@`]. In my original post I guess it would have been more accurate to refer "the historic triphthongal or disyllabic /aU@(r)/.
In my dialect, though, all those words you list above rhyme, ending in dysillabic /aU.@`/.
For me, ''our'' rhymes with ''flour'', ''sour'' and ''dour'', and ''hour'' rhymes with ''power'', ''shower'' and ''flower''.>>
Yeah, in some dialects a distinction is still preserved between disyllabic [aU.@`] and triphthongal [aU@`]. In my original post I guess it would have been more accurate to refer "the historic triphthongal or disyllabic /aU@(r)/.
In my dialect, though, all those words you list above rhyme, ending in dysillabic /aU.@`/.
Sorry, typos:
In my original post I guess it would have been more accurate to refer to "the historic triphthongal or disyllabic /aU@(r)/".
In my original post I guess it would have been more accurate to refer to "the historic triphthongal or disyllabic /aU@(r)/".
My pronunciation is about the same as Lazar's (I'm from the Northeastern US, I don't know if anyone else here is, as I skimmed some of this thread.), I usually pronounce 'hour' like 'flower' and 'our' like 'car,' although sometimes I pronounce them as if they're homophones, and sometimes when I say 'our' it's sort of a...combination. Kind of like 'ah-ir.' I think it depends on the other words around it.
Albert, just out of curiosity (since I, like Lazar, pronounce flour, sour, dour, power, shower, and flower the same), how do you pronounce them? Is it just a subtle difference, or is it really obviously different? You just piqued my curiosity since I've never heard those words pronounced differently.
Albert, just out of curiosity (since I, like Lazar, pronounce flour, sour, dour, power, shower, and flower the same), how do you pronounce them? Is it just a subtle difference, or is it really obviously different? You just piqued my curiosity since I've never heard those words pronounced differently.
>><<For me, ''our'' is monosyllabic, but doesn't sound like ''ow'' or ''ar''. ''our'' is more like /aUr/ [aU@`] (a triphthong) for me, and contrasts with ''hour'' which is bisyllabic /aU@`/ [aU.@`] for me.
For me, ''our'' rhymes with ''flour'', ''sour'' and ''dour'', and ''hour'' rhymes with ''power'', ''shower'' and ''flower''.>>
Yeah, in some dialects a distinction is still preserved between disyllabic [aU.@`] and triphthongal [aU@`]. In my original post I guess it would have been more accurate to refer "the historic triphthongal or disyllabic /aU@(r)/.
In my dialect, though, all those words you list above rhyme, ending in dysillabic /aU.@`/.<<
My dialect is one of those with this kind ofcontrast, but the fundamental contrast phonemically is between whether /r/ or /@`/ is present, with [@`] being just an allophonic realization of /r/ when it follows /aI/, /aU/, or /oI/ and is not followed in turn by another vowel. Of course, in many cases, this distinction is only clear due to morphology, where a word ending in [@`] will often replace [@`] with [r\] if a suffix is added to said word which starts in a vowel. Also note that there is a similar phonemic contrast with /l/ and /l=/, and [5=] and [5], in the place of /r/ and /@`/, and [@`] and [r\], respectively, as well, in my dialect.
For me, ''our'' rhymes with ''flour'', ''sour'' and ''dour'', and ''hour'' rhymes with ''power'', ''shower'' and ''flower''.>>
Yeah, in some dialects a distinction is still preserved between disyllabic [aU.@`] and triphthongal [aU@`]. In my original post I guess it would have been more accurate to refer "the historic triphthongal or disyllabic /aU@(r)/.
In my dialect, though, all those words you list above rhyme, ending in dysillabic /aU.@`/.<<
My dialect is one of those with this kind ofcontrast, but the fundamental contrast phonemically is between whether /r/ or /@`/ is present, with [@`] being just an allophonic realization of /r/ when it follows /aI/, /aU/, or /oI/ and is not followed in turn by another vowel. Of course, in many cases, this distinction is only clear due to morphology, where a word ending in [@`] will often replace [@`] with [r\] if a suffix is added to said word which starts in a vowel. Also note that there is a similar phonemic contrast with /l/ and /l=/, and [5=] and [5], in the place of /r/ and /@`/, and [@`] and [r\], respectively, as well, in my dialect.
Previous page Pages: 1 2