I don't believe that I have ever heard these two sets pronounced in an un-merged dialect. Before I started studying accents and dialects, I was under the impression that they were always merged. I would be interested to know if anyone has an audio clip of the un-merged pronunciations. Which region has the sharpest distinction between the two?
Horse/Hoarse and Poor/Pour
As for "horse-hoarse", the traditional accent here in Massachusetts makes a very sharp distinction between those word classes. (The distinction is rare among young people here, but it's still relatively common among middle-aged and older people.) In a traditional Massachusetts accent, "hoarse" is ["hO@s]; and "horse" actually uses the merged "cot-caught" vowel, so it's ["hQ:s]. So you get homophones like "lord, laud", both ["lQ:d], and "cord, cod", both ["k_hQ:d].
I should add that the "poor-pour" distinction is a completely different issue from the "horse-hoarse" distinction, so they really shouldn't be lumped together. I'm horse-hoarse merged, but I distinguish between "poor" ["p_hU@`] and "pour" ["p_hO@`]. I'm under the impression that the "poor-pour" distinction, unlike the "horse-hoarse" distinction, is very common in North America.
Yes, unmerged poor-pour is very common in NA; I would say standard. Unmerged horse-hoarse is much less so. However, it is still the norm throughout the Carribean, and I believe is still common in Scotland.
I've uploaded a song to putfile that shows the unmerged forms, but I won't leave it up too long because it's copyrighted. You can clearly hear in the second verse that 'support' and 'throat' rhyme [sapuot] [t_Suot]
http://media.putfile.com/Stop-Dem-Talkin
I've uploaded a song to putfile that shows the unmerged forms, but I won't leave it up too long because it's copyrighted. You can clearly hear in the second verse that 'support' and 'throat' rhyme [sapuot] [t_Suot]
http://media.putfile.com/Stop-Dem-Talkin
I would say pretty much most of the country. I merge both sets of words.
I believe most of the Pacific Northwest is pour/poor merged. However, there could be a slight, almost unnoticeable difference between the two with some speakers.
Lazar--is the distinction between horse and hoarse only common among people that are non-rhotic?
Also, I am still a work in progress on this X-Sampa thing. Are there any websites (with audio) that can give me a better idea of how it works entirely?
Lazar--is the distinction between horse and hoarse only common among people that are non-rhotic?
Also, I am still a work in progress on this X-Sampa thing. Are there any websites (with audio) that can give me a better idea of how it works entirely?
>> I believe most of the Pacific Northwest is pour/poor merged. However, there could be a slight, almost unnoticeable difference between the two with some speakers. <<
Seconded. I'm pretty sure the entire West is merged.
Seconded. I'm pretty sure the entire West is merged.
<<Lazar--is the distinction between horse and hoarse only common among people that are non-rhotic?>>
Yeah, round here, non-rhoticity is generally necessary to make the horse-hoarse distinction. (If you're rhotic, then you can't merge "horse" words into [Q:], so it will be harder to make the distinction.)
I'd say that the dialectal continuum here is:
non-rhotic, horse-hoarse unmerged (most conservative) < non-rhotic, horse-hoarse merged < rhotic, horse-hoarse merged (most progressive)
<<Are there any websites (with audio) that can give me a better idea of how it works entirely?>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-SAMPA has a chart explaining the whole system.
Yeah, round here, non-rhoticity is generally necessary to make the horse-hoarse distinction. (If you're rhotic, then you can't merge "horse" words into [Q:], so it will be harder to make the distinction.)
I'd say that the dialectal continuum here is:
non-rhotic, horse-hoarse unmerged (most conservative) < non-rhotic, horse-hoarse merged < rhotic, horse-hoarse merged (most progressive)
<<Are there any websites (with audio) that can give me a better idea of how it works entirely?>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-SAMPA has a chart explaining the whole system.
I here in Wisconsin consistently merge "horse" and "hoarse" as ["hORs], but I consistently distinguish "poor" and "pour" as ["p_hu:R] and ["p_hO:R] respectively.
How do pour-poor merged North Americans pronounce "tour"?
I have never heard anyone say the word to rhyme with "four", I have only heard /tu:r/ or something similar to it.
I have never heard anyone say the word to rhyme with "four", I have only heard /tu:r/ or something similar to it.
<<How do pour-poor merged North Americans pronounce "tour"?
I have never heard anyone say the word to rhyme with "four", I have only heard /tu:r/ or something similar to it.>>
I'm not pour-poor merged, but based on my own observations and what I've read about accents that are, yes, I think they do rhyme "four" and "tour", as /for/ and /tor/ (whether it's realized as [fo:r\],[fO:], [fOr\], etc.)
I have never heard anyone say the word to rhyme with "four", I have only heard /tu:r/ or something similar to it.>>
I'm not pour-poor merged, but based on my own observations and what I've read about accents that are, yes, I think they do rhyme "four" and "tour", as /for/ and /tor/ (whether it's realized as [fo:r\],[fO:], [fOr\], etc.)