They rhyme just about for me? the U is more defined in But though. kind of subtle mind?
why is the pronunciation of english so unstable?
<<wow...all the posts seem very interesting..but i have a very simple n a cliche question to ask...why in the world do we pronounce "put" and "but" as differently? can someone please solve this mystery for me?>>
That depends on what dialect you're talking about. Long ago all English dialects had the same vowel in "put" and "but" but now it's only Northern English dialects (and some Midland ones) that do this. Several centuries ago something happened called the "foot-strut" split. Words in the "foot" class ("put" is one of them) kept the old vowel /U/ while those in the "strut" class ("but" is one of them) changed to a lowered vowel. This split is presently seen in Southern British English and in English in most other parts of the world. Since it's seen in North America the split most likely predates North American colonization, so it probably happened in Early Modern English (the latter part of the 1400s to no later than the 1600s).
Why did this change happen? Language change rarely needs a good excuse to justify its existence or its methods--it just happens. These kinds of things happen to all languages. However, it may *seem* English is more "unstable" in this regard because spelling has often not been updated to reflect the changes. Of course, if you speak a dialect where "put" and "but" rhyme then the spellings still make perfect sense.
If you'd like more information on the split, check out the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-strut_split#Foot-strut_split
That depends on what dialect you're talking about. Long ago all English dialects had the same vowel in "put" and "but" but now it's only Northern English dialects (and some Midland ones) that do this. Several centuries ago something happened called the "foot-strut" split. Words in the "foot" class ("put" is one of them) kept the old vowel /U/ while those in the "strut" class ("but" is one of them) changed to a lowered vowel. This split is presently seen in Southern British English and in English in most other parts of the world. Since it's seen in North America the split most likely predates North American colonization, so it probably happened in Early Modern English (the latter part of the 1400s to no later than the 1600s).
Why did this change happen? Language change rarely needs a good excuse to justify its existence or its methods--it just happens. These kinds of things happen to all languages. However, it may *seem* English is more "unstable" in this regard because spelling has often not been updated to reflect the changes. Of course, if you speak a dialect where "put" and "but" rhyme then the spellings still make perfect sense.
If you'd like more information on the split, check out the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-strut_split#Foot-strut_split
Could some one put down a recording of "PUT + BUT" where they don't rhyme? I cant imagine them not! a selection of accents would be great :)
The "u" in "but" is like the "a" in "about" for me. The "u" in put is like the "oo" in "book".
Lol, seriously need recordings because. But, Put, Book, rhyme for me!
"The "u" in "but" is like the "a" in "about"
I say "tis bout" as in "it is about" so that doesn't help either lol ;)
"The "u" in "but" is like the "a" in "about"
I say "tis bout" as in "it is about" so that doesn't help either lol ;)
yea well they sure dont rhyme for me...i guess thats why english is called the user's language..hey thanks kirk..that link was truly insightful..
And to complicate things further... I'd say that I'm more or less 'but-bat' merged.
>>And to complicate things further... I'd say that I'm more or less 'but-bat' merged.<<
That is quite interesting, I must say. Could you tell more about such?
That is quite interesting, I must say. Could you tell more about such?
<<yea well they sure dont rhyme for me...i guess thats why english is called the user's language..hey thanks kirk..that link was truly insightful..>>
Glad you enjoyed it and found it useful :)
<<And to complicate things further... I'd say that I'm more or less 'but-bat' merged.>>
That's interesting. I'd read about some phoneticists in England noting that the two sounds were growing closer together for at least some speakers. John Wells noted this in one his works that I read. He seemed to conclude that it's possible the sounds could merge for some speakers in the future but given more time and research into the area it may become clearer as to what's going on in the future.
Glad you enjoyed it and found it useful :)
<<And to complicate things further... I'd say that I'm more or less 'but-bat' merged.>>
That's interesting. I'd read about some phoneticists in England noting that the two sounds were growing closer together for at least some speakers. John Wells noted this in one his works that I read. He seemed to conclude that it's possible the sounds could merge for some speakers in the future but given more time and research into the area it may become clearer as to what's going on in the future.
>>That's interesting. I'd read about some phoneticists in England noting that the two sounds were growing closer together for at least some speakers. John Wells noted this in one his works that I read. He seemed to conclude that it's possible the sounds could merge for some speakers in the future but given more time and research into the area it may become clearer as to what's going on in the future.<<
Such is actually somewhat similar to something going on here. It seems that historical /{/ will at times merge with historical /E/ in very unstressed positions here. Rather than being the diphthong [E{] or [e{] or like, it will actually become [E] (or more like [E_"]), becoming identical with /E/. While it has been widely noticed with "can" being realized as [k_hE_"~:n], and I have already noticed it with "yeah" being realized as [jE_"], I have noticed it again with "am" being commonly realized as [E_"~:m], which indicates that this is at least happening in extremely common "grammar words". While it all these cases there is also an alternate form using [E{] or [e{], such seems to be limited to quite stressed or careful speech.
Such is actually somewhat similar to something going on here. It seems that historical /{/ will at times merge with historical /E/ in very unstressed positions here. Rather than being the diphthong [E{] or [e{] or like, it will actually become [E] (or more like [E_"]), becoming identical with /E/. While it has been widely noticed with "can" being realized as [k_hE_"~:n], and I have already noticed it with "yeah" being realized as [jE_"], I have noticed it again with "am" being commonly realized as [E_"~:m], which indicates that this is at least happening in extremely common "grammar words". While it all these cases there is also an alternate form using [E{] or [e{], such seems to be limited to quite stressed or careful speech.
Can you explain why Tony Blair says "UT instead of IT"? god it's anoying!
"Can you explain why Tony Blair says "UT instead of IT"? god it's anoying! "
What you say is the perfect example of what i was talking about, i mean the fact that english is so unstable.
Nobody respects a model of pronunciation, on the contrary, everyone has his own.
What you say is the perfect example of what i was talking about, i mean the fact that english is so unstable.
Nobody respects a model of pronunciation, on the contrary, everyone has his own.
***Can you explain why Tony Blair says "UT instead of IT"? god it's anoying!***
It's got nothing to do with the fact that Tony Blur (oops...I mean Blair) was a student at Fettes College here in Edinburgh.....a private school (that's called a public school in England) ....as he is of Scottish heritage. Please don't hold that against the ordinary citizens of this bonnie City...it's not our fault.
The "instability" of the English Language......that's great! Of course it's unstable.....it's one almighty irregular mess...one whole dog's dinner of linguistic inexactitudes and nightmarish pronunciations for the novitiate and unwary if hardened speakers alike....and it's (BLEEPING) wonderful for all that! Long may the vicissitudes of English continue....in all it's forms.
It's got nothing to do with the fact that Tony Blur (oops...I mean Blair) was a student at Fettes College here in Edinburgh.....a private school (that's called a public school in England) ....as he is of Scottish heritage. Please don't hold that against the ordinary citizens of this bonnie City...it's not our fault.
The "instability" of the English Language......that's great! Of course it's unstable.....it's one almighty irregular mess...one whole dog's dinner of linguistic inexactitudes and nightmarish pronunciations for the novitiate and unwary if hardened speakers alike....and it's (BLEEPING) wonderful for all that! Long may the vicissitudes of English continue....in all it's forms.