Talk:Phonological history of English open back vowels

Rhotic Dialects verse Non-Rhotic Dialects

I was reading the talk between Grover and Jack and I was left slightly confused. They agrued that r's shouldn't effect the cot-caught merger and that words containing r's have the same potential. My first reaction was you've got to be kidding me no way are stock and stork similar. However, relooking at it there is potential here for the cot-caught merger to branch into two areas. Non-rhotic dialocts (which tend to not pronounce r's) like Boston which use the merger have the potential since words like father and farther are already homophones. North Mideast is strict rhotic where r's almost always affect the pronounciation. People from these areas actually consider non-rheotic English to be mangled/mispronounced English (yes, I know what American dialect isn't mangled English; I'm just telling you the mindset of the area I live in). Thus to merge stork and stock is unspeakable even with cot and caught merged Nice or in evil (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Audio

I'm reading this as cot-cot merger. Maybe someone would be kind enough to upload audio so that I can hear the difference? 63.95.64.254 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Cot-Caught Section: Plagiarism

This section (quoted below) is taken directly from the PBS "Do You Speak American" website (here: http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/midwest/ )

"The latter seems to be the source of its introduction into the Midwest as it appears to be spreading eastward. A recent survey directed by William Labov of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that the merger can be found today among younger generations (roughly people under 40) in Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. It is also heard across much of Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri. Similarly, the merger affects central portions of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, though its appearance in these areas may represent a westward expansion of the change from Pennsylvania."

Jefs (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. The addition made a couple years ago by an anonymous contributor. I've changed the wording and added proper citation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Are "kahn / con" categorized correctly?

In the section Father-bother merger, the following is asserted:

The father-bother merger is a merger of the Early Modern English vowels /ɑː/ and /ɒ/ that occurs in almost all varieties of North American English . . . . In those accents with the merger father and bother rhyme, and Kahn and con are homophonous as [kɑn]. . . .

It seems to me that the Kahn/con example should belong in the section on the Cot-caught merger, not the Father-bother merger. Isn't the kahn/con pair treated exactly like dawn/don and pawned/pond? These latter pairs are (correctly) categorized under the Cot-caught merger, not the Father-bother merger.

I checked the revision history, and this assertion was added way back on 22 December 2005. So it seems odd that it could have lasted so long if it is false. Can anyone verify this? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The current wording is correct. In accents like RP that distinguish the PALM, LOT and THOUGHT lexical sets, Kahn belongs in the PALM lexical set with words like "father". "con" belongs in the LOT lexical set. In such accents, "Kahn" doesn't rhyme with "dawn" or "pawn". Grover cleveland (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. As a west-coast American, I have the cot/caught merger, but am familiar with people who don't. But I guess I have never met someone who doesn't have the bother/father merger, so it's hard for me to understand it.

It would be great if there were sound files showing merged and un-merged vowels.

It would also be great to have a chart that shows whether the mergers are independent of each other. According to this page, there are three variables affecting the vowels /ɑː/, /ɒ/, /ɔː/, and /ɔ/: the Father-bother merger, the Lot-cloth split, and the Cot-caught merger. With three variables there are eight possible combinations: for example, there might be an accent that has all three of these; another accent that has the cot-caught merger but not the father-bother merger or the lot-cloth split; etc. But do all eight combinations really exist in English accents today?

Also, it would be helpful for the lexical groups to be explained. The table at the end of the page seems to suggest that "lot", "cot", and "bother" are always part of the same lexical group in every accent. If that's true, then it seems to make things more confusing to refer to "the Father-bother merger, the Lot-cloth split, and the Cot-caught merger". It would be much clearer to refer to "the Cot-father merger, the Cot-cloth split, and the Cot-caught merger", indicating that only four lexical groups are being affected, not six. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 18:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quick summary: the relevant lexical sets in the open area are TRAP, LOT, BATH, CLOTH, PALM, THOUGHT, START, NORTH, FORCE

• Canadian/Western US usually has:
  • /æ/ TRAP=BATH
  • /ɑ/ LOT=CLOTH=PALM=THOUGHT
  • /ɑr/ START
  • /ɔr/ NORTH=FORCE
• Eastern US (other than New England and the Pittsburgh area) usually has:
  • /æ/ TRAP=BATH
  • /ɑ/ LOT=PALM
  • /ɔ/ CLOTH=THOUGHT
  • /ɑr/ START
  • /ɔr/ NORTH=FORCE
• RP (England) has:
  • /æ/ TRAP
  • /ɑː/ BATH=PALM=START
  • /ɒ/ LOT=CLOTH
  • /ɔː/ THOUGHT=NORTH=FORCE

The father-bother merger could also be called the PALM-LOT merger. The Cot-Caught merger could also be called the LOT-THOUGHT merger. Many people prefer minimal-pairs or near-minimal-pairs (as in cot-caught or father-bother) because they are simply more memorable.

As for sound files, you can get some idea from the samples at Open back unrounded vowel and Open back rounded vowel. There are some websites with sound files for different dialects of English, but unfortunately I can't find them right now. Perhaps another editor can help. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Short O still exists in a few words in American English?

I've noticed that a lot of Americans seem to pronounce a few words with the short O. The list of words that use it is very small, so they don't use it often - and not all Americans use it. However, one of the words that is definitely on the list is "what". Some pronounce it with a short "ah", some with a very short "uh", but quite a lot of people pronounce it with the English short "o" as in "hot". Has this been noticed, and if so, is it mentioned on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter? The word "want" doesn't seem to be on the list, though - many more people pronounce that word with the "ah" sound. 90.209.112.76 (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that this specific group of poeple pronounce "what" with the exact same vowel as in "hot". I am guessing that these people pronounce "hot", "Don", and "cot" all with the same short-o vowel, correct? Do these people pronounce "Dawn" the same as "Don"? Do they pronounce "caught" the same as "cot"? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 00:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you're misunderstanding me. They are not using the same vowel in "what" as they use in "hot". In "hot" they use the "ah" vowel, but in "what" they use the English short "o", which is the way English people say "hot" - it's a vowel very rarely used in American English, but in a few words, including "what", this vowel is used. I hope that makes it a bit clearer. As for the other comparisons, I'm not sure, but I don't think it makes much difference. 90.209.112.76 (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to add: I said before that "want" isn't on the list, but I've noticed that the contraction "wanna" IS on the list, as the first vowel is said much more quickly. I think the list mainly consists of words that usually have the "ah" vowel in American English, but are said quickly most of the time. 90.209.112.76 (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. In American schools we use the term "short O" to refer specifically to the sound in "hot", "cot", "cloth"; I had not heard the term "short O" used for a sound that does not exist in most American dialects. Do you know the IPA term for this sound that appears only in England and in a few Americans' "what"? From what you say I am guessing you mean /ɒː/ but I'm not sure. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 17:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is /ɒ/. That's what most IPA guides say under Received Pronunciation, anyway. I'm from northern England, near Manchester myself, so my accent is a bit different, but close enough; that sound is virtually the same. Avengah (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify. No American would pronounce what as /wɒt/. It was probably a [wʌ̞t].--TheAmericanizator (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my ignorance, but what does that mean? I know what the upside-down v means (it's the "but" vowel, isn't it), but what does the little triangle thing underneath it mean? Also, I wanted to say that I've also noticed it on television; Americans saying "what" almost sound like they are saying it with an English accent sometimes, with the vowel sound they use. It doesn't sound like the "but" vowel at all in most cases. 2.216.230.60 (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel there is no need to apologize for your ignorance. It seems that you are not the only one that was perplexed, and that no one has responded to you yet because nobody else knew what the symbol meant either. On the Wikipedia page Vowel diagram, other vowel sounds are shown with this symbol. Based off the way that it is used, it looks like it means the vowel is dropped by a half of step. You would have to go to the page (link below) in order to understand fully what this means. That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.216.186 (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

References

pronunciation of "calm"?

My dictionaries and everywhere else seem to claim that "calm" is supposed to rhyme with "bomb". As a basically GA speaker, this has always seemed strange to me, as "calm", "palm", etc. in my speech have the vowel of "caught", not the "cot" vowel; i.e. they sound as if written "caum", "paum", etc. I've been asking people recently how they pronounce these words, and what I actually hear most often is "callm" i.e. the /l/ gets sounded. (I'm not sure about the vowel quality before it. Many of my friends have the cot-caught merger so it wouldn't be relevant anyway.) Note that none of these speakers pronounces the l in "walk" or "talk". Is this an incipient (spelling-influenced) sound change? Anyone with evidence? Benwing (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, ok, I do see a discussion above under "father-bother merger" of the pronouncing of /l/ in "calm" etc. So I guess my real question is, what's the relative occurrence of [kɑm] vs. [kɔm] vs. [kɑlm] or whatever? BTW the difference in my speech between "cot" and "caught" AFAICT is something like [kat] vs. [kɒt] where the former is a central (not front!) vowel and the latter is less rounded than the equivalent [ɒ] sound in RP. In fact if I concentrate I can switch between the words "cot" and "caught" without moving my lips at all, but for the latter word the back of the tongue moves up a lot, almost as if I'm velarizing the vowel; i.e. there's little tongue difference between my [ɒ] and my dark /l/. Don't know what symbol properly represents this in IPA. Benwing (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I would probably say that since "CALM" is one of the lexical sets, its correct pronunciation would be the pronunciation of that set. Having checked, I can say that it uses the "ah" (fAther) vowel, and the L is silent. 90.217.136.135 (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Contradicts Great Vowel Shift

This article seems to contradict the chart on Great Vowel Shift in describing how vowels changed and when they changed. At first I tried to change the article to be more consistent with the other article, but then I noticed there were references to a published book text, and I couldn't fundamentally change the details without deleting this reference, and I can't check the reference because it seems to be academic shelfware. So here I mark the article as contradictory. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Self-Contradiction in 16th Century Changes

In the section 16th century changes, it says "The diphthong /ɔʊ/ found in low and soul had become /oʊ/." and it also says "There were thus three low back monophthongs at this time: /ɔ/ as in dog, /ɔː/ as in low and (before /r/), in more and /ɒ/ in corn." In other words, it says that the word low was pronounced as /loʊ/ and it also says it was pronounced /lɔː/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rectipaedia (talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This was the result of Gilgamesh's well-meaning but misguided attempt to resolve contradictions that are due to sources themselves providing conflicting accounts already; I have undone his changes now. Glossing over real differences in the accounts given by different sources is generally a bad idea. Let's acknowledge that they differ and leave it at that. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

/* Lot–cloth split */ but they have the same vowel in American English

Lot and cloth have the same vowel in at least some dialects of American English. The section lists several identical vowels [such as lot and cloth] as if they are supposed to contrast, and several contrasting vowels [such as bother vs. bongo] as if they are supposed to be identical. Either the split hasn't affected all dialects of AmE, or it has been followed by a lot-cloth merger in at least some dialects of AmE. Either way the section should mention this. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

They split in all American dialects but then re-merged in many dialects with the cot-caught merger (See the cot-caught merger section for information on which dialects those are.) So basically, American dialects that do not have the cot-caught merger, still make the lot-cloth distinction (lot like cot and cloth like caught). --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 18:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

How I see it, this should not be mentioned. In American English, regardless of any dialect pronunciations, lot is correctly pronounced as /lat/ or /lät/, or /lɑt/ or lɒt/. However, cloth is correctly pronounced as /clɔθ/. Furthermore, Wikipedia does state, that in areas with the cot-caught merger, that this split has "become completely moot." In short, I feel that it is a little rude to say that your dialect pronunciation is the standard pronunciation for American English. Over and out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.226.245 (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I should apologize for my behavior. Reading this section for the first time, I saw somebody whining who didn't know what they were talking about. But two wrongs don't make a right. So, for my penance, I give a word of advice to all:

• This section of the talk page probably should have been named "Lot-cloth split". Never name a section of a talk page with a title geared towards one side. Give a neutral name and then explain your problem in the section. On the contrary, if you are creating a section in order to get an answer to a question, then by all means, you may name the section whatever your question is.
• As the second speaker said, in accents where the vowels merged again, this was not due to a lot-cloth merger, but a cot-caught merger. Calling it a lot-cloth merger gives a false impression that the merger happened as a result of spelling. However, mergers rarely result from spelling.

Anyway, I do apologize for my behavior. Over and out.74.102.216.186 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible caught-cot map

I found something interesting, a statistical study from 2013 where one of the questions is if you pronounce "caught" and "cot" the same way. It has 3 maps which illustrate the results. I have no idea if its license allows it to be used, etc, but if someone is not as lazy as me, maybe they can research it and if possible incorporate it into the article. Here is the link. 77.70.30.216 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC) P.S. It's question number 28 in the drop-down menu on the left. 77.70.30.216 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Cot-caught merger and syllabification

Does cot-caught merger affect the syllabification of words? For example, without the merger, the syllabification of daughter is /ˈdɔ.tɚ/ and that of potter is /ˈpɑt.ɚ/ in American English, as the accented “short” vowel /ɑ/ must be followed by a consonant. How does a person with the merger, who pronounces daughter as /ˈdɑ.tɚ/, syllabify potter? /ˈpɑt.ɚ/ (like paut-er) or /ˈpɑ.tɚ/ (like pau-ter)? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@TAKASUGI Shinji: I beg your pardon. I just saw your post a few hours ago. As I think about this, I have one issue. As an American myself, for a personal observation, the 't' in daughter is usually pronounced as a flap, the realization being potentially [dɔːɾɚ]. (I am not going to go into the realization of every accent). However, flapping can only occur in a closed syllable and the next syllable has to start with a vowel. Hence, "what on earth" (/wʌt.ɒn.ɜːrθ/). is sometimes pronounced as [wʌɾ.ɑn.ɝθ]. However, "attitude" (/æt.ɪ.tuːd/) is pronounced as [æɾ.ɪ.tuːd] rather than [æɾ.ɪ.ɾuːd]. Therefore, for this reason, I think "daughter" could actually be "syllabified", as you say, as /dɔːt.ɚ/ without the cot–caught merger. Thus, I can conclude that a person with the merger would most likely syllabify potter as /pɑt.ɚ/.LakeKayak (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@LakeKayak: Thank you for your reply. If so, can water be syllabified as [ˈwɑɾ.ɚ]? It’s possible, but I’m afraid we don’t have a source for that. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're correct we don't have a source. I'll have to look to see if there is out there. However, I think it is possible.LakeKayak (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

'Water' must be syllabified as [ˈwɑɾ.ɚ] because /ɑ/ is shortened because of the following /t/, which, in addition, is flapped. Syllable-initial /t/ is extremely rarely flapped, and the only word that comes to mind in which that is the case is the weak form of to, which can be (or 'usually is'?) pronounced [ɾə] after vowels. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: Pretty much what I was thinking. Although I think pronouncing "to" as [ɾə] is still a little rare, if you say it happens, I'll take your word for it. However, the real problem TAKASUGI Shinji and I have is that we don't have a source to verify this claim. Do you happen to have one? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@LakeKayak: Hmm, one example I can think of: Go to the store! pronounced as [ˌɡo ɾə ðə ˈstor]. — Eru·tuon 20:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Even then, I would say [ˌgoʊ tə ðə ˈstɔɹ]. The word "to" was also the only case Mr KEBAB could think of as well.LakeKayak (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@LakeKayak: Well, I guess it's because it's unstressed. There aren't too many potentially unstressed words beginning in t. — Eru·tuon 20:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Cot-caught merger in Singaporean English

I won't unilaterally change this, but it has to be noted that the Deterding and Hvitfeldt paper cited for the merger of cot and caught in Singaporean English does not indicate what vowel the words have merged to. The way the article is written implies that both vowels are merged to /ɑ/, which is what it is in the American English merger. But the Deterding and Hvitfeldt paper also shows that the two vowels under consideration in Singapore English are /ɔ/ (caught) and /ɒ/ (cot). Whatever the merged vowel is, it is definitely not /ɑ/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelicularities (talk • contribs) 16:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Pelicularities (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It's probably [ɔ] or something similar, yes. Peter238 (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Who comes up with this stuff...

Do people actually go into cities and study or do they just assume that all surrounding states speak the same??? Cot (ky-t/kah-t) does not rhyme with caught (caw-ght or court depending on area) in Baltimore so I don't know why we are linked in with that...Chic3z (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Americocentric

This article is called "Phonological history of English low back vowels", but it ends up focusing almost entirely on developments in American English. It needs a lot more sections on developments in other accent areas.

Doesn't the cot-caught merger have its own page? In which case a whole load of detail could be offloaded into that and sections could be added on non-American low back vowels without making the article too long. 82.14.34.119 (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, cot-caught merger does not have its own page. If you type in "cot-caught merger" into the search engine, the search engine redirects to this page. But stopping the redirecting might be possible. I'll see if it is now.74.102.216.186 (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it turns out that you need an account to make such a move. As I do not have an account myself, the best that I can do is request for the move. I do apologize, sir/ma'am, for my incapability to be of more help.74.102.216.186 (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. I have successfully moved cot-caught merger to its own page. (f.k.a 74.102.216.186)LakeKayak (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Cot-caught audio files - merged clips not identical?

The two pronunciations under "merged" are not the same. If they are supposed to be showing someone speaking with the merger, shouldn't they sound identical? Now I'm not sure I understand what a merger is. The files under "not merged" sound completely different than each other to be sure, whereas the "merged" files sound more similar, but there is definitely a difference in the "merged" files. Can someone please explain? These are great though, I wish they could be added to all the mergers as examples. But I need a little more explanation because if I can hear the difference in the pronunciation of the "merged" clips it hurts the credibility (for me) of the rest of the article. Is this some kind of partial merging going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.97.99 (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The difference between cot and caught in the "merged" files is very very slight, enough that it would probably vanish in everyday speech. The difference in the "unmerged" files is quite significant, and would be likely to remain in everyday speech. — Eru·tuon 23:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

maybe that should be in the aeticle? Source? Doesnt make sense as is. It says this merger makes them "perfect homophones" but they are not. "I got cot" sounds different than "I got caught" (and exactly like the merged clips for both) in everyday speech to me, and definitely perceivable, though I've heard dialects that pronounce as the former. Seems there is some middle-ground merger discussion missing. Secondly, the IPA for the first file sounds more like [ä] to me; maybe thats the problem? The second sounds more like [ɒ̈] . Note that user Rockrunnerthecard made up these IPAs last year, so there should be no presumption of accuracy as they are now. It would be inconvenient that the "merged" clips demonstrate different IPA pronunciations, but the variance should not be lampshaded (by writing the IPA identically even though they may not be) just so the article seems supported. Its also possible the IPA does not have sufficient precision to represent the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.146.179 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a source. Just my personal understanding of how mergers work. And I've got an American accent with a merger or near merger.

The IPA isn't very fine-grained, and I doubt the two sounds are different enough to get different symbols. There might be a slight difference in lip rounding, which could be transcribed with a diacritic [ä̜], and maybe in backness, but not very much. Not every sound that you can hear a difference in will get to have a different symbol.

I don't know if there are sources on how complete the merger is or how slight a distinction speakers might make between the two sounds. It seems a nit-picky topic. But I wouldn't know, because I'm not all that interested in it.

You're free to edit the article if you think the transcriptions or the description is wrong, though of course you may be reverted by other editors if they disagree. — Eru·tuon 07:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Could anyone clear up this inconsistency for me?

Under "16^th century changes", it reads "The diphthong /aʊ/ found in words such as cause, law, all, salt, psalm, half, change, chamber, dance had become an open back monophthong /ɒː/." However, on a different Wikipedia page, Phonological History of English, it says that /aʊ/ was monophthongized to /ɔː/. So, I am left confused. What actually happened? Any insight is appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.218.18 (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I have made the adjustments myself to be consistent with the other Wikipedia page. From my experience, this inconsistency developed from one source: Barber. So, it is probably wisest not to use that source. Pages from the same site should be consistent with each other so that readers are not terribly confused (like how I was). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.218.18 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Trap-bath split

I am a little confused. In addition to describing the lot-cloth split, the article says that "Similar changes took place in words with <a>." This is where I am confused. To start:

• American English has the lot-cloth split,
• and Received Pronunciation has the trap-bath split.

However:

• American English lacks the trap-bath split,
• and RP lacks the lot-cloth split.

The article does say that, although the lot-cloth split was originally in RP, "today words of this group almost always have short /ɒ/ in RP." Therefore, the previous split in British English could be considered a weak split.

So, as the two splits are not found in the same accent, are the two splits really related to each other, or did they occur independently of each other? I would appreciate if somebody could help me out. Thank you.74.102.216.186 (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Forget it. The two are possibly said to be related because they occur in similar environment. For example, the lengthening of the short /ɒ/ and short /æ/ both occur before /θ/. Over and out. 74.102.216.186 (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for removal

Currently, the article reads that the cot-caught merger has taken place in

• "Many recent varieties of General American and other transitioning varieties throughout the country in otherwise historically non-merged regions."

I feel that the line is too vague, and it should be clarified. I was able to access the listed source. However, the problem is that the information is given in the form of a map.

Although I feel the sentence should be removed from the article, this is only my opinion. And I want to hear somebody else's opinion first. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Question on location of Information

I have a question about the location of the following line:

In the Mid-Atlantic U.S. dialect, most famously spoken in metropolitan Philadelphia and Baltimore, the single word on has the same vowel as dawn, dog and boss (in the mid-Atlantic, this is [ɔə~oə]), but not the same vowel as dock, don, dot, dodge, etc. ([ɑ~ä]). In this dialect, in other words, on and pawn rhyme perfectly, but odd and pawed do not rhyme at all. Labov et al. regard this phenomenon as occurring not just in the Mid-Atlantic region, but in all regions south of a geographic boundary that they identify as the ON line, which is significant because it distinguishes most varieties of Northern American English (in which "on" and "Don" are closer rhymes) from most varieties of Midland and Southern American English (in which "on" and "dawn" are closer rhymes).

Although the line currently is under the section Cot-caught merger, should this be under the section Lot-cloth split instead? I wish to hear someone's opinion before I make the change. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have heard nobody's opinion for or against. And I have learned from experience that, when people have opinions, they tend to voice them. So, I am going to make that change. However, if anybody reverts the edit, then I'll let it be. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Cot-caught

Now we have a separate page for the cot-caught merger, we should reduce the current section on this page to a short summary. Assuming there are no longer any objections to having the separate article (I think it makes sense). W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussing inconsistencies of the lot-cloth split

Currently, the article says as follows:

"In words not formed this way, however, the phoneme /ɑ/ tends to occur even before a triggering phoneme. For example, possible, jostle, impostor, profit, Gothic, bongo, Congo, and boggle all have /ɑ/. But there are numerous exceptions (e.g. Boston with /ɔ/), including across apparent rhyming pairs (e.g. roster with /ɑ/ but foster often with /ɔ/), as well as a good deal of variation (coffee, offer, donkey, soggy, boondoggle, etc. with either /ɑ/ or /ɔ/, depending on the speaker)."

The word "profit" in particular caught my eye. It may have to do with an open-syllable versus a closed-syllable. The word "profit" in particular is usually pronounced /prɑ.fɪt/. Therefore, the triggered vowel is in an open syllable. On the other hand, "Boston" is pronounced as /bɔːs.tən/. So, the triggered vowel is in a closed syllable. There are still irregularities like "roster," "offer," and "impostor." However, that could clear up some of the inconsistencies.LakeKayak (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess that is another irregularity this split has. For example, In the /-f/ section, it said it had no exception; which, of course is not true. Otherwise words like ophthalmology and its derivatives would all have the /ɔ/ sound, but they don't, they all have /ɑ/. Found in speakers who still retain the /-f-/ pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.84.20.126 (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course, in accents of American English that are subject to the cot–caught merger, there is no difference between words that did and those that did not undergo the change.

I really feel this line is redundant. A previous line says similarly:

The cot–caught merger, discussed below, has removed the distinction in some dialects, and may make the lot-cloth split less noticeable.

Therefore, the former should be removed in the article. If anybody objects, then they should speak now. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I am going to remove the line, anyway. It really seems like we are dumbing down the page, here. This is not how I feel a Wikipedia page should be written. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Second element of historical diphthongs

@LakeKayak, could you explain your revert of my changing /aʊ/, /ɔʊ/, /oʊ/ to /au/, /ɔu/, /ou/? I think there is no warrant for using the rather specific symbol ⟨ʊ⟩ here, as the offglide of the diphthongs is a non-specific high back rounded vowel. But I don't know what the sources use, as none are cited (or whether their reasoning is good or bad). — Eru·tuon 02:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon: After thinking this over, I think it may boil down to conventional notation, where the transcription /au/ may be misleading, implying that the second element of the diphthong was a full vowel. (I myself was mislead for sometime.) The two conventions I have seen to avoid that would be to use /aʊ/ or /au̯/. If there is no warrant for using the former, would you approve the latter? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@LakeKayak: Yeah, adding a non-syllabic diacritic would be fine. Using ⟨ʊ⟩ to indicate a non-syllabic vowel is, I think, not consistent with the conventions of the IPA: the symbol, like ⟨ɪ, ʏ⟩, does not mean "non-syllabic", it means a less-than-fully-close vowel. The correct way to indicate non-syllabicity is with the non-syllabic diacritic. — Eru·tuon 01:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Done.LakeKayak (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

THOUGHT–GOAT merger

@LakeKayak: How would you like that section to be expanded? Apart from a table of homophones, I'm not sure how much more we can write about it. The merger is highly unusual and most speakers don't have it. Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: Initially, I thought we could write it as a full section like "Unrounded lot" and "lot–cloth split". Unfortunately, from reading your post, it seems that it is impossible to do so. I may have to revert my edit.LakeKayak (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record I think this section probably could be expanded a bit as a lot more northern English dialects have an extremely near merger here. Perhaps only female Geordies merge the two vowels completely but many more pronounce "goat" with a long monophthong rather than a diphthong, e.g. Hickey, Raymond (2015). Researching Northern English. John Benjamins. p. 213. gives values for Carlisle as [o̞ː~ɔː~ɔ̞ː] for THOUGHT and [oː~ɔ̝ː] for GOAT. Something didn't quite click when I read this "female speakers" thing because I have heard Alan Shearer pronounce "goal" as something close enough to /gɔːl/ thousands of times. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I found another source which attests to the merger also occurring in Bradford as well as in Tyneside without specifying "females". Have added a bit more info. The important missing info was that in Northern English the GOAT vowel is often not a diphthong, even if the two vowels are distinguished by tone. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Table

What exactly does the "Table" on this page show us without any reference to time or location? Can we add a time-frame to it (particular spans of years/centuries, for example)? It seems to be pulled straight from Wells, but without any context or even page number given. Wolfdog (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Fronted /oʊ/

LakeKayak: I'm intrigued, regarding the fact that "In many dialects of English, the vowel /oʊ/ has undergone fronting", you've written an accompanying comment as follows: "Note to editors, this seems to be worth-noting on "a" Wikipedia page. However, which one remains in question. Therefore, if you don't think this is the appropriate page for this material, we can discuss this one on the talk page". I think this is a great topic to discuss, since /oʊ/ (GOAT) fronting, and in fact the quality of the /oʊ/ vowel overall, appears to be one of the major differentiating features of varieties of English, much like the cot-caught merger. General American, RP, and Australian/NZ /oʊ/ vowels are quite clearly distinguished even among everyday speakers of English and even in popular imitations of these accents. I also think a "History" of these divergent developments in the /oʊ/ vowel (such changes in the vowel being relatively recent, mostly just in the last century or so) would have a lot of research and information to present. Wolfdog (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Agreed, but we shouldn't limit ourselves to discussing only fronting. In Cockney for example, you have [ɐɤ ~ ɐʊ ~ aɤ], a pronunciation with a lowered but not necessarily very fronted onset, and the second element is back. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: Whatever the group decides. On the other hand, you don't find that [ɐ] and especially [a] are pretty significant examples of fronting when the historical baseline is [o]?? Generally, by GOAT fronting, I think we mean fronting of the on-glide (not the off-glide). Wolfdog (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Yes, that's true that the historical baseline is a close-mid back rounded monophthong. But when people think about the typical mainstream North American pronunciation of /oʊ/, it's [ɔ̈ʊ] or [ɞʊ], a closing diphthong with a (back-)central onset that is generally more open-mid than close-mid. That's what I had in mind. From [ɔ̈ ~ ɞ], the most significant feature of the change to [ɐ] is lowering and unrounding, not necessarily fronting. I don't know about [a], Wells doesn't specify the backness but rather just writes [aʊ] for the broadest Cockney variant. I changed [ʊ] to [ɤ] because the latter is more common an ending point. I also disagree with the last sentence. That might be the North American usage, but in Southern England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa the term "fronting" applies more to the second element, or at least to both of the elements equally. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: Alright, so we should look into both on-glides and off-glides. But it does look to me, then, like we have a case for having an entire section or even article focusing on English GOAT; there's obviously plenty to discuss in terms of fronting as well as lowering and unrounding. Also, as a side-note, from my own GenAm perspective (productionwise and perceptionwise), the roundedness or not hardly influences Americans' accent perception. I can pronounce it as well as hear it pronounced as rounded or not with little discernible difference between the two; again, roundedness may be of more relevance to studies of British English. Wolfdog (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: I'm not sure if having a separate article on the GOAT vowel wouldn't violate WP:UNDUE or a similar policy (perhaps UNDUE doesn't apply here), but a section (which already exists) is a good choice. To me, rounded central vowels are perceptually more back than unrounded central vowels, but that may be just my ears. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog:, I was a little hesitant on whether or not it should go on this page or Phonological history of English high back vowels. Anyway, the comment only reflects my hesitant nature.LakeKayak (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@LakeKayak: The original phonetic value of the contemporary GOAT vowel before the GVS was [ɔː], so it was more open than close. To me, this seems to be the correct page for that section. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this is an acceptable place for this information as it's preferable to categorise stuff according to the present than the past and will remove the inline comment if no one disagrees. I added a see also link to English-language vowel changes before historic /l/#Goat split which discusses a new phoneme that arose in some of these Southern dialects (mine included) as a result of the vowel holding out against fronting before /l/s in codas. For the record, this ref which I just added to the THOUGHT-GOAT merger section also talks about fronting of the monophthongal Northern GOAT vowel [oː] to [ɵː] throughout the North East so it might be worth mentioning that too. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Soundfiles

Any chance of providing soundfiles of what these are talking about? It's going completely over my head.50.194.115.156 (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

i speak american english and father and bother are not said the same

‎ Dankpods (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Living RP speakers with LOT-CLOTH split?

Queen Elizabeth has died, so her inclusion in the section on the LOT-CLOTH split is now moot; if someone adds it back I won't change it, but would it not be sensical to use the her as an example of how the LOT-CLOTH split "still exists" in older RP speakers. LinguaNerd (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)