I say [sQr\i], which is basically the father-bother distinguishing version of [sAr\i]. GenAm [sAr\i] is quite similar to my pronunciation and doesn't strike me as too odd, but [sOr\i] or [sor\i] do sound a bit "off" (as you would say) to me.
Neutral American English
Maine? No accent?
Good heavens! It's so thick you can cut it with a knife. The way she pronounces "snack" is pure Northern.
The Standard American English broadcasters aim for is based on the English spoken in Nebraska and Iowa; I knew a girl from Omaha who had not a trace of variation from this standard.
As an aside, Walter Kronkite was from Nebraska.
Good heavens! It's so thick you can cut it with a knife. The way she pronounces "snack" is pure Northern.
The Standard American English broadcasters aim for is based on the English spoken in Nebraska and Iowa; I knew a girl from Omaha who had not a trace of variation from this standard.
As an aside, Walter Kronkite was from Nebraska.
''General American'' is defined as anything that is not either Southern or East Coast and WITHOUT regional shifts (Northern Cities Shift, Californian shift, other shifts).
Cambridge dictionaries use Californian pronunciation (cot/caught merged but without the Californian shift) when they show US pronunciation. I call it a ''modern'' General American...
Longman dictionaries use central pronunciation (Nebraska?) (no cot/caught mergers, no shifts, but they indicate alternative pronunciations of some words ''coffee'' [kQ-, kA-], ''wash'' [wQS, wAS], horrible [hQ-, hA-]). Webster dictionary seem to follow this ''traditional'' usage too.
Cambridge dictionaries use Californian pronunciation (cot/caught merged but without the Californian shift) when they show US pronunciation. I call it a ''modern'' General American...
Longman dictionaries use central pronunciation (Nebraska?) (no cot/caught mergers, no shifts, but they indicate alternative pronunciations of some words ''coffee'' [kQ-, kA-], ''wash'' [wQS, wAS], horrible [hQ-, hA-]). Webster dictionary seem to follow this ''traditional'' usage too.
Between Nebraska and California, I would choose California.
Californian General American has more ''prestige''.
Californian General American has more ''prestige''.
<<Longman dictionaries use central pronunciation (Nebraska?) (no cot/caught mergers, no shifts, but they indicate alternative pronunciations of some words ''coffee'' [kQ-, kA-], ''wash'' [wQS, wAS], horrible [hQ-, hA-]). Webster dictionary seem to follow this ''traditional'' usage too.>>
That seems reasonable. I think General American is basically what the Midwest and Inland North spoke about fifty years ago. Different parts have been affected by cot-caught merging, the NCVS, influence from Southern English, etc. which I think has basically eliminated GenAm as a native variety. It still exists as an abstraction, or the goal of 'accent reduction' programs, but I'm not sure that there's any area that still has an 'accentless' pronunciation (ie. not regionally distinct). There are a few features that are less salient and could be part of "near-GenAm" in a given region: the c-c merger, the pen-pin merger, lack of pre-/r/ merging, etc. so a lot of Americans probably speak a variety that is close enough to GenAm to be perceived as such within its area, but would be regionally identifiable outside of it.
That seems reasonable. I think General American is basically what the Midwest and Inland North spoke about fifty years ago. Different parts have been affected by cot-caught merging, the NCVS, influence from Southern English, etc. which I think has basically eliminated GenAm as a native variety. It still exists as an abstraction, or the goal of 'accent reduction' programs, but I'm not sure that there's any area that still has an 'accentless' pronunciation (ie. not regionally distinct). There are a few features that are less salient and could be part of "near-GenAm" in a given region: the c-c merger, the pen-pin merger, lack of pre-/r/ merging, etc. so a lot of Americans probably speak a variety that is close enough to GenAm to be perceived as such within its area, but would be regionally identifiable outside of it.
I pronounce sorry, tomorrow, horrible, borrow, sorrow, etc. with the 'OR' sound. Despite the fact that the 'AR' sound has become the standard, I am hesitant to adopt it for it some reason. Someone pointed out to me the other day that my pronunciation of the word "hour" is very different, but I had never noticed it. Mine is apparently more rounded than the general variation found in the United States.
Oh, and just so you know--according to the Encarta online dictionary, "tomorrow" is "tomOHrrow". I suppose we Northwesterners and Canadians are doing something right. ;-)
Oh, and just so you know--according to the Encarta online dictionary, "tomorrow" is "tomOHrrow". I suppose we Northwesterners and Canadians are doing something right. ;-)
I say sorry, tomorrow, borrow, and sorrow all with the AR, but I keep the OR in horrible. Harrible sounds weird to me, and I very rarely hear it said that way (although I have heard it).
I heard it's somewhere in Midwestern states.
Maybe Nebraska or Missouri.
Maybe Nebraska or Missouri.
>> Oh, and just so you know--according to the Encarta online dictionary, "tomorrow" is "tomOHrrow". I suppose we Northwesterners and Canadians are doing something right. ;-) <<
YES!!! I KNEW I WAS RIGHT!
YES!!! I KNEW I WAS RIGHT!
>>That seems reasonable. I think General American is basically what the Midwest and Inland North spoke about fifty years ago. Different parts have been affected by cot-caught merging, the NCVS, influence from Southern English, etc. which I think has basically eliminated GenAm as a native variety.<<
I would have to qualify this and say that General American would have been the speech of more southerly and westerly parts of the Midwest around the time of the end of the WW2, as more northerly parts of the Midwest have substratum influences which are a not new innovations and are completely outside of General American (even though some cases have become relatively widespread, such as "come with"). Also at that point in time, the northern Midwest was not yet English-monolingual, but rather languages such as German, Norwegian, and Polish were still actively spoken in parts.
>>It still exists as an abstraction, or the goal of 'accent reduction' programs, but I'm not sure that there's any area that still has an 'accentless' pronunciation (ie. not regionally distinct).<<
It is still a useful abstraction, in that it provides something to compare other dialects against; note that this is why I am strongly against calling dialects which are vaguely "standardish" General American, as it reduces the value of General American as a relatively fixed entity to which other dialects can be compared.
>>There are a few features that are less salient and could be part of "near-GenAm" in a given region: the c-c merger, the pen-pin merger, lack of pre-/r/ merging, etc. so a lot of Americans probably speak a variety that is close enough to GenAm to be perceived as such within its area, but would be regionally identifiable outside of it.<<
I would say that there are many dialects today which would approximate a near-GenAm, even though GenAm proper is probably relatively uncommon today due to it lacking the cot-caught merger (and the most of the more GenAm-like dialects today are cot-caught merged).
I would have to qualify this and say that General American would have been the speech of more southerly and westerly parts of the Midwest around the time of the end of the WW2, as more northerly parts of the Midwest have substratum influences which are a not new innovations and are completely outside of General American (even though some cases have become relatively widespread, such as "come with"). Also at that point in time, the northern Midwest was not yet English-monolingual, but rather languages such as German, Norwegian, and Polish were still actively spoken in parts.
>>It still exists as an abstraction, or the goal of 'accent reduction' programs, but I'm not sure that there's any area that still has an 'accentless' pronunciation (ie. not regionally distinct).<<
It is still a useful abstraction, in that it provides something to compare other dialects against; note that this is why I am strongly against calling dialects which are vaguely "standardish" General American, as it reduces the value of General American as a relatively fixed entity to which other dialects can be compared.
>>There are a few features that are less salient and could be part of "near-GenAm" in a given region: the c-c merger, the pen-pin merger, lack of pre-/r/ merging, etc. so a lot of Americans probably speak a variety that is close enough to GenAm to be perceived as such within its area, but would be regionally identifiable outside of it.<<
I would say that there are many dialects today which would approximate a near-GenAm, even though GenAm proper is probably relatively uncommon today due to it lacking the cot-caught merger (and the most of the more GenAm-like dialects today are cot-caught merged).
>>Harrible sounds weird to me, and I very rarely hear it said that way (although I have heard it).<<
As a person who says harrible and harror (non tory/torrent merged), it amuses me when people say horror with the O sound. It often sounds like they're saying "whore."
As a person who says harrible and harror (non tory/torrent merged), it amuses me when people say horror with the O sound. It often sounds like they're saying "whore."
The Telegraph's Malcolm Hawkins explains how, despite speaking the same language (sort of), it can be difficult for a Brit to communicate properly with Americans - and vice versa.....
The land of lateral speaking
By Malcolm Hawkins
03/05/2007
Daily Telegraph
Crossing the pond is easy; communication once you have arrived can be less so.
Today, after 15 years as an expat in New England, I still encounter two difficulties.
The first is in speaking in a manner comprehensible to the average American. The second is in understanding the reply.
Many Americans prefer not to open their mouths when speaking, or only minimally and laterally, so vowels and consonants are formed in the back of the throat. The vowels are comically tight in words such as "and" or "chance", and consonants are lazy, especially "t's (they sound more like d's).
I was recently navigating around Cambridge, Massachusetts, a city with an unusually cosmopolitan, almost European atmosphere about 50 miles from our New Hampshire home. I was circulating Harvard Square looking for a slot for my rusting clunker (banger to the Brits) and reversed into a metered space. "Excuse me, have you got a quarter?" A blank expression clouded the face of the passer-by. "A quarter, one of those silver coins. . ."
"Oh, a quarderr, why sure!"
Arranging travel over the telephone has to be done with care. "I'd like to get on a flight from Manchester to Dallas."
"We have a service arriving Washington Dulles 15.35"
"Er, no, Dallas, Texas."
"Would you mind repeating that, sir?" she replied in a drawl from somewhere well south of the Mason-Dixon line. "Cos y'all have an accent!"
The late Alistair Cooke, who came from Blackpool via Cambridge University to New York, had the most distinguished mid-Atlantic accent, known to countless listeners to his Letter from America.
In his television series America, he pointed out that Spanish or French could have become the main language. What a difference that would have made! We would have been spared the broken English that serves as the international language of tourism and Hollywood movies, for a start.
It is a sobering thought that 67 per cent of the world population who speak English as a first language live in North America; the land of split infinitives, the use of nouns as verbs - you can "tuition in" or "gross out" - ugly slang such as "a-whole-nother", and overdone adjectives - "incredible" means quite good, and "spectacular" is applied to things which are not visual.
Abraham Lincoln observed of one of his countrymen: "He can compass the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I ever met." This ability has been passed on to those who are employed to write legal jargon of the kind that you never read, which flashes up on screen when you download software, or confronts you when you sign papers for a mortgage loan.
I have now done this twice in the USA. You only have to sign eight of the pages but they send the other 96 anyway. They can be summed up as: "We are covering our rears from every conceivable angle, and charging you for it."
The advent of the cell phone (mobile in Britain) has added a new dimension to the life of the long-winded. When an Amtrak special I was on recently broke down, close to New York's Grand Central station, the carriage was immediately abuzz with beeps and chitter-chatter. "Hi, honey, it's me. . . late for dinner. . . total boondoggle. . . load of jerks. . ."
The inevitable message from Amtrak cut in; apologising to its hugely valued and esteemed travellers, assuring us the problem would be fixed "momentarily".
Be very wary of that word in America. It usually means a long wait, as it did on this occasion. The tedium of the wait made car travel seemed a beguiling alternative, especially since gas prices were on a descent, from around $3 to $2.15 a gallon.
They have now rocketed back to $2.60! But the ways in which American and British attitudes to the car contrast are worth an article on their own.
telegraph.co.uk
The land of lateral speaking
By Malcolm Hawkins
03/05/2007
Daily Telegraph
Crossing the pond is easy; communication once you have arrived can be less so.
Today, after 15 years as an expat in New England, I still encounter two difficulties.
The first is in speaking in a manner comprehensible to the average American. The second is in understanding the reply.
Many Americans prefer not to open their mouths when speaking, or only minimally and laterally, so vowels and consonants are formed in the back of the throat. The vowels are comically tight in words such as "and" or "chance", and consonants are lazy, especially "t's (they sound more like d's).
I was recently navigating around Cambridge, Massachusetts, a city with an unusually cosmopolitan, almost European atmosphere about 50 miles from our New Hampshire home. I was circulating Harvard Square looking for a slot for my rusting clunker (banger to the Brits) and reversed into a metered space. "Excuse me, have you got a quarter?" A blank expression clouded the face of the passer-by. "A quarter, one of those silver coins. . ."
"Oh, a quarderr, why sure!"
Arranging travel over the telephone has to be done with care. "I'd like to get on a flight from Manchester to Dallas."
"We have a service arriving Washington Dulles 15.35"
"Er, no, Dallas, Texas."
"Would you mind repeating that, sir?" she replied in a drawl from somewhere well south of the Mason-Dixon line. "Cos y'all have an accent!"
The late Alistair Cooke, who came from Blackpool via Cambridge University to New York, had the most distinguished mid-Atlantic accent, known to countless listeners to his Letter from America.
In his television series America, he pointed out that Spanish or French could have become the main language. What a difference that would have made! We would have been spared the broken English that serves as the international language of tourism and Hollywood movies, for a start.
It is a sobering thought that 67 per cent of the world population who speak English as a first language live in North America; the land of split infinitives, the use of nouns as verbs - you can "tuition in" or "gross out" - ugly slang such as "a-whole-nother", and overdone adjectives - "incredible" means quite good, and "spectacular" is applied to things which are not visual.
Abraham Lincoln observed of one of his countrymen: "He can compass the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I ever met." This ability has been passed on to those who are employed to write legal jargon of the kind that you never read, which flashes up on screen when you download software, or confronts you when you sign papers for a mortgage loan.
I have now done this twice in the USA. You only have to sign eight of the pages but they send the other 96 anyway. They can be summed up as: "We are covering our rears from every conceivable angle, and charging you for it."
The advent of the cell phone (mobile in Britain) has added a new dimension to the life of the long-winded. When an Amtrak special I was on recently broke down, close to New York's Grand Central station, the carriage was immediately abuzz with beeps and chitter-chatter. "Hi, honey, it's me. . . late for dinner. . . total boondoggle. . . load of jerks. . ."
The inevitable message from Amtrak cut in; apologising to its hugely valued and esteemed travellers, assuring us the problem would be fixed "momentarily".
Be very wary of that word in America. It usually means a long wait, as it did on this occasion. The tedium of the wait made car travel seemed a beguiling alternative, especially since gas prices were on a descent, from around $3 to $2.15 a gallon.
They have now rocketed back to $2.60! But the ways in which American and British attitudes to the car contrast are worth an article on their own.
telegraph.co.uk