*Ireland and N. Ireland. Otherwise any vowel difference might be like that of N. America.
one vowel sounds like "er" without "r"?
Tiffany, I have no idea what they do in Britain, nor how often you get dislexics there. I also have no idea what the rate of dislexia is in America or Australia, so I wouldn't have the foggiest. I don't imagine the fact that we normally spell the vowel /a:/ as "ar" (and sometimes "a" and sometimes "al" and sometimes "au") whereas Americans normally spell the vowel /A/ as "o" or "aw" or "au" (and sometimes "a" and sometimes "al") makes a huge difference, as of course Kirk and you have already remarked upon.
Also, the "er" sound (which is quite likely to be the sound Americans call "ur" as in "learn", rather than "-er" ... another American/Merican* difference of names of sounds/letters) ... anyway, the "er" sound in non-rhotic accents doesn't sound a thing like "eh" or "uh" to us non-rhotic speakers. There's actually a relative diversity of precise realisations given that phonemically it's almost always spelt /3:/, but in various parts of the world it approaches [2:] (like Fr. "deux"), in others [9:] (like Fr. "neuf"), in others it's just [@:], in others it *is* [3:], in others it's [@\:] (long close-mid central unrounded), in others it's [E:] and merges with "air", in others it's [O:] and merges with "aw". Obviously the last to are rather marked as being rather regional and non-standard, whereas the rest are standard somewhere or somewhen.
* A pun, or play on words. The greek prefix a- is a negator, so obviously "American" is the negative of "Merican", which we may assume refers to the rest of the world, or such of it as is relevant.
Anyway, that does of course mean that Mr Punctuation is wrong becasue the French, Hungarians, ... should have less trouble with trying to get a standard pronunciation of "er" than "short a". I always think rather than just teaching/learning British Received Pronunciation or American English, foreign learners of English should be taught the relatively-standard variant of English that most closely approximates their own native language's sound system. Then I'm told that if an Australian movie is released in America it is often dubbed/subbed because Americans can't understand it, or that when Bill Clinton first visited Australian Prime Minister John Howard he had a lot of difficulty understanding him, and I think maybe it won't work out so easily...
Getting on to the Cot-Caught merger, it seems to be reasonably obvious that in a dialect region where there is no or only rare cot-caught merging, the sounds should be much further apart than in a region where there is widespread cot-caught merging, because it is usually a prerequisite for a merger than the sounds are similar. So in America, they developed to be near each other, and then they became the same.
But you should also note that the distinction is often not purely on the grounds of orthography. For instance in Australian English and I'm told various British ones, which have had in their history the "lot-cloth" split (but subsequently backed it out), "au" is often pronounced as a "short o" before S, so many people pronounce the introductions of "Austria" /OstSr-/ and "ostrich" /OstSr-/ the same, likewise "caustic" is pronounce "KOSstick" not "KAWstick" as one might expect. And also, whether the default "aw"/"or" sound or the "short o" is used before r+vowel can be rather random; for instance, "Lauren" is /lOr@n/ and "Laura" is /lo:r@/.
(That's why Aussie is spelt the way it is, but pronounced the way it is. We distinguish between cot and caught, but "Aussie" is pronounced "ozzie", but never spelt "Ozzie". Unless you're talking about "Ozzie Osborn".)
Also, the "er" sound (which is quite likely to be the sound Americans call "ur" as in "learn", rather than "-er" ... another American/Merican* difference of names of sounds/letters) ... anyway, the "er" sound in non-rhotic accents doesn't sound a thing like "eh" or "uh" to us non-rhotic speakers. There's actually a relative diversity of precise realisations given that phonemically it's almost always spelt /3:/, but in various parts of the world it approaches [2:] (like Fr. "deux"), in others [9:] (like Fr. "neuf"), in others it's just [@:], in others it *is* [3:], in others it's [@\:] (long close-mid central unrounded), in others it's [E:] and merges with "air", in others it's [O:] and merges with "aw". Obviously the last to are rather marked as being rather regional and non-standard, whereas the rest are standard somewhere or somewhen.
* A pun, or play on words. The greek prefix a- is a negator, so obviously "American" is the negative of "Merican", which we may assume refers to the rest of the world, or such of it as is relevant.
Anyway, that does of course mean that Mr Punctuation is wrong becasue the French, Hungarians, ... should have less trouble with trying to get a standard pronunciation of "er" than "short a". I always think rather than just teaching/learning British Received Pronunciation or American English, foreign learners of English should be taught the relatively-standard variant of English that most closely approximates their own native language's sound system. Then I'm told that if an Australian movie is released in America it is often dubbed/subbed because Americans can't understand it, or that when Bill Clinton first visited Australian Prime Minister John Howard he had a lot of difficulty understanding him, and I think maybe it won't work out so easily...
Getting on to the Cot-Caught merger, it seems to be reasonably obvious that in a dialect region where there is no or only rare cot-caught merging, the sounds should be much further apart than in a region where there is widespread cot-caught merging, because it is usually a prerequisite for a merger than the sounds are similar. So in America, they developed to be near each other, and then they became the same.
But you should also note that the distinction is often not purely on the grounds of orthography. For instance in Australian English and I'm told various British ones, which have had in their history the "lot-cloth" split (but subsequently backed it out), "au" is often pronounced as a "short o" before S, so many people pronounce the introductions of "Austria" /OstSr-/ and "ostrich" /OstSr-/ the same, likewise "caustic" is pronounce "KOSstick" not "KAWstick" as one might expect. And also, whether the default "aw"/"or" sound or the "short o" is used before r+vowel can be rather random; for instance, "Lauren" is /lOr@n/ and "Laura" is /lo:r@/.
(That's why Aussie is spelt the way it is, but pronounced the way it is. We distinguish between cot and caught, but "Aussie" is pronounced "ozzie", but never spelt "Ozzie". Unless you're talking about "Ozzie Osborn".)
<<Yeah, isn't it interesting how different they are for British speakers? Even for "cot-caught" non-merged Americans, the difference between the two vowels isn't as great as what you hear in "cot-caught" non-merged British speakers (which is basically all of them).>>
They're often merged (as [O], I think) in Scotland.
They're often merged (as [O], I think) in Scotland.
<<Yeah, isn't it interesting how different they are for British speakers? Even for "cot-caught" non-merged Americans, the difference between the two vowels isn't as great as what you hear in "cot-caught" non-merged British speakers (which is basically all of them).>>
Although traditionally the "cot-caught" sounds of NAE have been transcribed as [A] and [O], I suspect that for most c-c unmerged Americans the "caught" vowel is really closer to [Q]. In the US it's less common to hear people make the strong distinction that's made in RP.
This is evidenced by the split between the vowels in "caught" and "sore" that seems to be almost universal in NAE - they both use the same vowel in RP.
I think the c-c-unmerged "broadcast standard" of GA may actually represent somewhat of a midpoint between RP and your (Kirk's) merged system - the "caught" vowel has split off from the "sore" vowel and has started to migrate towards the "cot" vowel, but it hasn't quite made it there yet. ;-)
Although traditionally the "cot-caught" sounds of NAE have been transcribed as [A] and [O], I suspect that for most c-c unmerged Americans the "caught" vowel is really closer to [Q]. In the US it's less common to hear people make the strong distinction that's made in RP.
This is evidenced by the split between the vowels in "caught" and "sore" that seems to be almost universal in NAE - they both use the same vowel in RP.
I think the c-c-unmerged "broadcast standard" of GA may actually represent somewhat of a midpoint between RP and your (Kirk's) merged system - the "caught" vowel has split off from the "sore" vowel and has started to migrate towards the "cot" vowel, but it hasn't quite made it there yet. ;-)
<<Then I'm told that if an Australian movie is released in America it is often dubbed/subbed because Americans can't understand it>>
Not anymore. Not that we get a lot of your movies in wide release, but almost all of the ones I have seen were in the original dialect. The only exception I can think of right off-hand was the original "Mad Max", which of course came out decades ago, but all of the subsequent sequels were undubbed. And I've never seen one with subtitles....
Not anymore. Not that we get a lot of your movies in wide release, but almost all of the ones I have seen were in the original dialect. The only exception I can think of right off-hand was the original "Mad Max", which of course came out decades ago, but all of the subsequent sequels were undubbed. And I've never seen one with subtitles....
>><<Yeah, isn't it interesting how different they are for British speakers? Even for "cot-caught" non-merged Americans, the difference between the two vowels isn't as great as what you hear in "cot-caught" non-merged British speakers (which is basically all of them).>>
Although traditionally the "cot-caught" sounds of NAE have been transcribed as [A] and [O], I suspect that for most c-c unmerged Americans the "caught" vowel is really closer to [Q]. In the US it's less common to hear people make the strong distinction that's made in RP.<<
The for me at least, though, is that I can realize a separate sound [Q] distinct from both [A] and [O], even though it is not native to my dialect at all, which happens to be significantly lower than [O] is, and is rounded, unlike [A}.
>>This is evidenced by the split between the vowels in "caught" and "sore" that seems to be almost universal in NAE - they both use the same vowel in RP.<<
I have such as well, having [O] in "caught" and [o] in "sore", *unlike* most Americans, who would have [O] in "sore".
>>I think the c-c-unmerged "broadcast standard" of GA may actually represent somewhat of a midpoint between RP and your (Kirk's) merged system - the "caught" vowel has split off from the "sore" vowel and has started to migrate towards the "cot" vowel, but it hasn't quite made it there yet. ;-) <<
My dialect still very distinctly maintains a three-way separation between /A/, /O/, and /o/, even though I do notice people on occasion pronounce /A/ as /O/, which always sticks out to me as somewhat "off".
Although traditionally the "cot-caught" sounds of NAE have been transcribed as [A] and [O], I suspect that for most c-c unmerged Americans the "caught" vowel is really closer to [Q]. In the US it's less common to hear people make the strong distinction that's made in RP.<<
The for me at least, though, is that I can realize a separate sound [Q] distinct from both [A] and [O], even though it is not native to my dialect at all, which happens to be significantly lower than [O] is, and is rounded, unlike [A}.
>>This is evidenced by the split between the vowels in "caught" and "sore" that seems to be almost universal in NAE - they both use the same vowel in RP.<<
I have such as well, having [O] in "caught" and [o] in "sore", *unlike* most Americans, who would have [O] in "sore".
>>I think the c-c-unmerged "broadcast standard" of GA may actually represent somewhat of a midpoint between RP and your (Kirk's) merged system - the "caught" vowel has split off from the "sore" vowel and has started to migrate towards the "cot" vowel, but it hasn't quite made it there yet. ;-) <<
My dialect still very distinctly maintains a three-way separation between /A/, /O/, and /o/, even though I do notice people on occasion pronounce /A/ as /O/, which always sticks out to me as somewhat "off".
"I don't see why it isn't just easier to pronounce it everywhere it's written than to have to figure out when to pronounce it versus when not to." It's simple,Tiffany, we learn to speak before we learn to read or write. We pronounce it where we pronounce it. Dealing with when to write the letter <r> & when not to is not the greatest challenge facing the student of English spelling.
<<Isn't there such a merger in Ireland?>>
I've read that there is in terms of where the vowels are produced, but that "caught" still has a longer time of production. Thus, for those speakers, they might have something like [k_hAt] / [k_hA:t] (or whatever the vowel may be).
<<(That's why Aussie is spelt the way it is, but pronounced the way it is. We distinguish between cot and caught, but "Aussie" is pronounced "ozzie", but never spelt "Ozzie". Unless you're talking about "Ozzie Osborn".)>>
We pronounce "Aussie" as ["Asi] here (to the annoyment of Australians, since it sounds like "arsey" to them). In fact, Felix, if you're the same Felix who posted on Unilang I think it was you who told me that (my screenname was svenska84 but I changed it to Kirk there).
<<My dialect still very distinctly maintains a three-way separation between /A/, /O/, and /o/, even though I do notice people on occasion pronounce /A/ as /O/, which always sticks out to me as somewhat "off".>>
Do your vowels there ever follow along the lines of the NCVS, (which has [k_hat] for "cot" and [k_hAt] for "caught")? For advanced NCVS speakers, the difference is clearly maintainted even tho it's not the traditional [A]/[O] distinction but [a]/[A] as a result of the shift.
I've read that there is in terms of where the vowels are produced, but that "caught" still has a longer time of production. Thus, for those speakers, they might have something like [k_hAt] / [k_hA:t] (or whatever the vowel may be).
<<(That's why Aussie is spelt the way it is, but pronounced the way it is. We distinguish between cot and caught, but "Aussie" is pronounced "ozzie", but never spelt "Ozzie". Unless you're talking about "Ozzie Osborn".)>>
We pronounce "Aussie" as ["Asi] here (to the annoyment of Australians, since it sounds like "arsey" to them). In fact, Felix, if you're the same Felix who posted on Unilang I think it was you who told me that (my screenname was svenska84 but I changed it to Kirk there).
<<My dialect still very distinctly maintains a three-way separation between /A/, /O/, and /o/, even though I do notice people on occasion pronounce /A/ as /O/, which always sticks out to me as somewhat "off".>>
Do your vowels there ever follow along the lines of the NCVS, (which has [k_hat] for "cot" and [k_hAt] for "caught")? For advanced NCVS speakers, the difference is clearly maintainted even tho it's not the traditional [A]/[O] distinction but [a]/[A] as a result of the shift.
>><<My dialect still very distinctly maintains a three-way separation between /A/, /O/, and /o/, even though I do notice people on occasion pronounce /A/ as /O/, which always sticks out to me as somewhat "off".>>
Do your vowels there ever follow along the lines of the NCVS, (which has [k_hat] for "cot" and [k_hAt] for "caught")? For advanced NCVS speakers, the difference is clearly maintainted even tho it's not the traditional [A]/[O] distinction but [a]/[A] as a result of the shift.<<
The main thing is that there is not a standard NCVS for back vowels in my dialect, but rather there is the backing of /o/ (and in many idiolects, its strong diphthongalization, fronting, and sometimes subsequent remonophthongalization as a rounded high central or front vowel word-finally), and the *freeing* of /A/ to shift from [A] to [a] (but not its complete shifting to [a]). And yes, with such, such distinctions are clearly maintained; if anything, they are made stronger.
Do your vowels there ever follow along the lines of the NCVS, (which has [k_hat] for "cot" and [k_hAt] for "caught")? For advanced NCVS speakers, the difference is clearly maintainted even tho it's not the traditional [A]/[O] distinction but [a]/[A] as a result of the shift.<<
The main thing is that there is not a standard NCVS for back vowels in my dialect, but rather there is the backing of /o/ (and in many idiolects, its strong diphthongalization, fronting, and sometimes subsequent remonophthongalization as a rounded high central or front vowel word-finally), and the *freeing* of /A/ to shift from [A] to [a] (but not its complete shifting to [a]). And yes, with such, such distinctions are clearly maintained; if anything, they are made stronger.
>><<(That's why Aussie is spelt the way it is, but pronounced the way it is. We distinguish between cot and caught, but "Aussie" is pronounced "ozzie", but never spelt "Ozzie". Unless you're talking about "Ozzie Osborn".)>>
We pronounce "Aussie" as ["Asi] here (to the annoyment of Australians, since it sounds like "arsey" to them). In fact, Felix, if you're the same Felix who posted on Unilang I think it was you who told me that (my screenname was svenska84 but I changed it to Kirk there).<<
I myself pronounce "Ozzie" and "Aussie":
"Ozzie" : /"Azi/ -> ["A:.zi]
"Aussie" : /"Osi/ -> ["O.si]
We pronounce "Aussie" as ["Asi] here (to the annoyment of Australians, since it sounds like "arsey" to them). In fact, Felix, if you're the same Felix who posted on Unilang I think it was you who told me that (my screenname was svenska84 but I changed it to Kirk there).<<
I myself pronounce "Ozzie" and "Aussie":
"Ozzie" : /"Azi/ -> ["A:.zi]
"Aussie" : /"Osi/ -> ["O.si]
Yes, we have a lot of Australian shepherd dogs in my area (which aren't Australian in origin, but that's another story), and believe me, everyone calls them "Aussies" with an S-sound, not a Z-sound.
Aussie is in the same category of spelling as Missouri; "Mizouri" v "Misouri".
Missouri is always pronounced with a Z-sound; I've never heard it said with an S. Usually the big question with that name is what sound ends it: Missouree or Missourah?