Pronunciation of Standard English in America (1919)

[zompist]

and my /ɔ/ is [ɒ] across the board except before /r/ (where I have [ɔ]...).

This may be true of me too— once I provided a sound sample here on the board, and I was told that my /ɔ/ was [ɒ].

[Travis B.]

and my /ɔ/ is [ɒ] across the board except before /r/ (where I have [ɔ]...).

This may be true of me too— once I provided a sound sample here on the board, and I was told that my /ɔ/ was [ɒ].

I personally perceive real [ɔ], in other English varieties and other Germanic languages such as German, as akin to my /oʊ/, which for me is really [o̞] in isolation (but after alveolars, postalveolars, and palatals is very often [ɵ̞]).

[Nortaneous]

can go either way (with [ɑ] being more general) in ... produce

Produce? The noun? People used to say [ˈprɑdus]?

bowie-knife could be either [ˈboːɪ-] or [ˈbuːɪ-] even in 1919, so the hates can shut it

[dejvɪd buwi] is a common error for Marylanders due to the name of the town.

"In Eastern New England, a number of words which elsewhere have a long vowel are pronounced with a short [o]-vowel which is slightly more fronted than the ordinary vowel, giving a mid half-front tense rounded vowel." his examples are Polk, polka, whole, both, folks, Holmes, most, only

I wonder if this is the same as the [oˁ] / BOTH set I've noticed (except "most" - unless there's a recorded misspelling "molst" like there is for "bolth"?), but I don't have this split myself. "Social" is another one.

Sometimes the /l/ is lost from "only". I've heard one person who had this but not the BOTH split, so it was homophonous with "oni"... very odd.

[*]the final vowel in "Indian proper names" Choctaw, Kenesaw, Utah, Altamaha, Omaha, Ottawa is [ɔː] — do cot-caught distinguishers really pronounce "Utah" with [ɔː]???

Yes, but I'd say [oməhɑ] and [ɑtəwə]. I don't know what's prescribed though.

the text of this paragraph states that oral and aural are merged in the standard pronunciation, but seems to imply that they are still distinguished by the speakers who use [o]

Sometimes aural has [ɔr], but it's hard to tell if this is a reversal of the merger for disambiguation or just START.

it occurs with some speakers in words with an o or wa such as hot, nod, log, soft, moss, on, water, watch, soft, moss, dog; these can also be [ɑ]

I have /ɑ/ in hot, nod, water, watch and /ɔ/ in the rest.

[Travis B.]

"In Eastern New England, a number of words which elsewhere have a long vowel are pronounced with a short [o]-vowel which is slightly more fronted than the ordinary vowel, giving a mid half-front tense rounded vowel." his examples are Polk, polka, whole, both, folks, Holmes, most, only

I wonder if this is the same as the [oˁ] / BOTH set I've noticed (except "most" - unless there's a recorded misspelling "molst" like there is for "bolth"?), but I don't have this split myself. "Social" is another one.

For me /oʊ/ can be any of [o̞], [o̞ː], [ɵ̞], or [ɵ̞ː], all depending on the surrounding consonants. It also followed by [w] if it precedes another vowel unless that is due to intervocalic elision.

Sometimes the /l/ is lost from "only". I've heard one person who had this but not the BOTH split, so it was homophonous with "oni"... very odd.

Interesting, especially since for me the /nl/ cluster often assimilates to [ʟ̞ː], but leaving the preceding vowel nasalized.

it occurs with some speakers in words with an o or wa such as hot, nod, log, soft, moss, on, water, watch, soft, moss, dog; these can also be [ɑ]

I have /ɑ/ in hot, nod, water, watch and /ɔ/ in the rest.

I have /ɑ/ in hot, nod, and on (Edit: forgot about that one) and /ɔ/ in the rest including water and watch (note that wasp, swan, etc. have /ɑ/ for me though).

[Nortaneous]

I'd never heard of Americans having a vowel other than /ɑ/ or /ʊ/ in water before the last time this came up.

I know someone for whom warm and worm are homophones. I'm not sure if this extends to war and were, or if there are any other words a /worC/-/wʌrC/ merger would affect, since most people pronounce wort like wart.

[Travis B.]

I'd never heard of Americans having a vowel other than /ɑ/ or /ʊ/ in water before the last time this came up.

And I'd never heard of a non-cot-caught-merged American having anything other than /ɔ/ in water.

I know someone for whom warm and worm are homophones. I'm not sure if this extends to war and were, or if there are any other words a /worC/-/wʌrC/ merger would affect, since most people pronounce wort like wart.

That is weird... for me warm (and war) have /ɔr/ while worm (and were) have /ɜr/, and I'd've never've heard of at least any (rhotic) Americans (I'm assuming this person is an American) who has any other.

[Emily]

u, uː

• once again the length is dependent on environment: short [u] is found in recrudescence, altruistic, absolutely, Lusitania; long [uː] is found in words like boot, cool, soon, spool, group, souop, troupe, dune, lunar, rule, rune, do, to, bruit, fruit, suit
  • absolutely is transcribed [ˈæbsəˌlutlɪ]
• many words can be pronounced with either [u] or [ʊ], though they tend to lean one way or the other; [uː] predominates in aloof, boot, broom, food, groom, proof, roof, rood, room, rooster, root, soon, spook, spoon, woof, [ʊ] in butcher, coop, Cooper, hoof, hoop, Hooper, nook, rook, soot (he notes that soot is also often [sʌt]!)
  • he notes that pronouncing [ʊ] for the first group "must be characterized as local or provincial", but [uː] for the second is "supported by the usage of many cultivated speakers"
  • i personally have [uː] where he does except for woof, and also in coop, Cooper, hoop, Hooper; it should be noted of course that my [u] is very fronted
• a common alternate pronunciation for acoustic is [əˈkɑʊstɪk]
• brooch can be either [bruːtʃ] or [broːtʃ]; the latter seems to have won out in the intervening century
• as today, the word route is [ruːt] in the standard pronunciation but popularly also [rɑʊt]; however, he also lists tour and wound (presumably the noun) as having the same variation!
  • i have always insisted on [ruːt] for route (at least as a noun), except for the six weeks i spent as a holiday clerk for the us postal service, where [rɑʊt] was so entrenched that sticking with [ruːt] would almost have been insubordination lol
• the standard pronunciation of zoology begins [zo-], with [zu-] being a spelling pronunciation; ime the spelling pronunciation has won out

ʊ

• supple is normally [ˈsʌpl] but sometimes [ˈsʊpl]
• brusque is both [brʊsk] and [brʌsk], the former being preferred
• apparently in 1919 the golf term "putt" was spelled "put"
• before r the sound can have a "very slight" glide [ʊɚɹ], which is more apparent before final [ɹ] than before [r] followed by a vowel; his examples are lure, sure, pure, cure, endure, your, poor, moor, boor; he lists rural, fury, jury only as [ʊr], stating that a glide is "general in British pronunciation but rare in America"
• in the words your, poor, moor, boor, a pronunciation with [-ɔːɚɹ] "is current in localities but not in standard American pronunciation"
  • i personally have noticed that american speech tends to avoid [ʊr]/[ur] in favor of [or] or [ɚ]. the only words i can think of that i even semi-consistently pronounce with [ʊr~ur] are lure and tour, and even the former i might sometimes pronounce [lɚr]. i think this is probably related to, if not part of, the overall reduction of vowel distinctions between [r]; note the previously discussed marry/merry/Mary merger, the widespread collapse of [iː] and [ɪ] (so that "mirror" and "clearer" rhyme), and of course in cot-caught–merging dialects the collapse of [ɔr] and [or]

ʌ
this sound is typically written with u, but also sometimes o or ou

• the standard pronunciation of ur before a vowel is [ʌr]: burrow, hurry, turret, scurry; this can likewise be spelled o, ou: borough, thorough, courage, nourish, flourish. he notes that "with some speakers" this is pronounced [ɚr], "but this pronunciation is not often heard in cultivated speech" — it's probably not surprising anyone that i pronounce all of these with [ɚ], and [ʌ] sounds either affected or east coast to me
• some words that are normally pronounced [ɛr] or [ɪr] followed by a vowel are often rendered [ʌr] in dialect pronunciation: merry, very, terrible, American, bury, miracle, squirrel, stirrup, syrup, Syracuse. "But usage in this latter group is not altogether uniform, and though perhaps no cultivated speaker ever says [ˈmʌrəkl], many cultivated speakers do say [ˈsʌrəp], [ˈstʌrəp], [ˈskwʌrəl]." he notes that dialect speech may also substitute [ɚ]
• in some words written with on, both [ʌn] and [ɑn] (or [-ŋ] where appropriate) "are in good use, the latter being more general"; his examples are constable, conjure, monger, mongrel
• american speech usually has [ɔ] in bombard, bombast and [ɔ] or [ɑ] in combat, while british pronunciation often has [ʌ] in these words instead
• just and such are normally [ʌ], but often [ɪ] or [ɛ] in popular speech — this is widespread with "just" today, but i don't think i've ever heard this pronunciation for "such"
• he lists [ʌː] as its own section, but only to say it's the non-rhotic pronunciation of stressed [ɚɹ]: fur [fʌː], shirt [ʃʌːt]

---

what the fuck is "recrudescence"

[zompist]

[*]many words can be pronounced with either [u] or [ʊ], though they tend to lean one way or the other; [uː] predominates in aloof, boot, broom, food, groom, proof, roof, rood, room, rooster, root, soon, spook, spoon, woof, [ʊ] in butcher, coop, Cooper, hoof, hoop, Hooper, nook, rook, soot

I'd disagree with him on roof, room, root, woof, and on coop, Cooper, hoop, Hooper.

I've heard [u] in roof, room, root, but I'd be taken aback by [kʊp] or [hʊp].

[*]as today, the word route is [ruːt] in the standard pronunciation but popularly also [rɑʊt]; however, he also lists tour and wound (presumably the noun) as having the same variation!

I think I say [rɑʊt]... [rut] doesn't sound wrong though!

[Travis B.]

What gets me about this pronunciation is that the vowel system posited by it differs so drastically from that of modern NAE. In most modern varieties of NAE, there is no phonemic vowel length at all - and any supposed "phonemic vowel length" is really tense/lax pairs. But conversely, modern NAE has allophonic vowel length, where any given vowel phoneme can be either short or long - and in some dialects like my own, intervocalic elision can lead to phonetic overlong vowels. The vowels shown here definitely do not follow the rules of allophonic vowel length as applies to modern NAE. At the same time, modern NAE vowels differ in realized length depending on stress and how many syllables are in a word, on top of simple allophonic vowel length, but this cannot explain the vowel lengths shown here either.

[Emily]

his description of vowel length here is phonemic. i will admit i may have put a length symbol or two into a [u] transcription just to avoid having to do tedious workarounds so it wouldn't turb into a bbcode underline tag, and of course i'm summarizing his reporting in these posts rather than directly quoting. maybe now that we're almost through the vowels i can go through the parts i've already posted from and try to distill what he's saying about vowel length if people are interested

[Estav]

his description of vowel length here is phonemic. i will admit i may have put a length symbol or two into a [u] transcription just to avoid having to do tedious workarounds so it wouldn't turb into a bbcode underline tag, and of course i'm summarizing his reporting in these posts rather than directly quoting. maybe now that we're almost through the vowels i can go through the parts i've already posted from and try to distill what he's saying about vowel length if people are interested

For the most part, I don't think Krapp's transcriptions of length represent phonemic length distinctions (the apparent exception is the alleged distinction between [ɑ] for LOT and [ɑː] for FATHer, which on the surface of it looks phonemic, although I'm not sure that isn't some kind of "cultivated" Mid-Atlantic-type thing). I haven't looked at this book in a while, but my impression is that Krapp is often simply giving descriptions of (his impressions of) phonetic length. While it's interesting that length was salient to him in this way, the fact that a linguist takes note of this kind of thing doesn't imply that it is phonemically contrastive. Modern linguists have made similar observations of vowels being allophonically longer in monosyllables (or in some cases at word-end) then in non-final syllables of polysyllabic words in various languages.

There's this passage on "Quantity":

It should be understood that the terms long and short are used not to designate absolute quantity [...] The vowel of awe [ɔː] is long, but so also is the vowel of awful ['ɔːfǝl], though not absolutely so long as the vowel of awe. The length of a vowel depends very much upon the number of syllables in the word containing it, the position of the word in context, and also upon the amount of stress the syllable containing the vowel receives. Unstressed vowels are very seldom long. Moreover, all vowels are appreciably longer before voiced than before voiceless consonants...

(39-40)

In regard to length of /i/, Krapp says it's dependent on word length and the vowel's position relative to stress:

The vowel [i] is heard only in polysyllables, like expediency [ɛks´pidɪənsɪ], where the stress on the accented syllable is comparatively light, or in unstressed syllables, as in eternal [i´tɚɹnəl], economy [i´kɑnəmi], œsophagus [i´sɑfəgəs]. The half-long vowel may be recognized in compounds, like tea-table [´tiˑ`teˑbl],and the long vowel in words containing full stress, as in tea [tiː], he [hiː], key, quay [kiː], deed [diːd], bean [biːn], priest [priːst], convene [kən´vɪːn], eagle [´iːgl], Egypt [´iːdʒɪpt].

(page 76)

[Emily]

when i said "phonemic" i meant "allophonic" lol, sorry, i had literally just woken up

[Travis B.]

One thing that is apparent from all this, though, is that the modern fortis/lenis-conditioned allophonic vowel length is not dominant at the time this was written or at least in the varieties Krapp is describing.

For instance, in the NAE I am familiar with a simple rule can be used to determine the length of any given vowel: the first obstruent phoneme following a vowel before the next vowel determines its length (short if it is fortis, long if it lenis), even across word boundaries; if there is no such obstruent, then the vowel is long, unless it is utterance-final, where then it is unspecified for length. The only exception here is if an intervocalic consonant phoneme is elided, and the resulting vowel sequence is forbidden; then, if the preceding vowel would have been short, the two vowels merge together into a long diphthong or monophthong, whereas if the preceding vowel would have been long, the two vowels merge together into an overlong diphthong or monophthong.

After all this is applied, then the vowels' lengths are further conditioned by stress, word length, and like. Note that I normally would analyze "short vowels" after consonants and before other vowels as actually /j w/, considering that their distribution is not really predictable (i.e. why Tok[iː]o and Lithuan[iː]a but Californ[j]a and Pennsylvan[j]a?).

However in this stuff here, the vowel lengths provided seem far more haphazard and do not follow any similar fixed allophonic rule, even when stress and word length are taken into account.

[Nortaneous]

After all this is applied, then the vowels' lengths are further conditioned by stress, word length, and like. Note that I normally would analyze "short vowels" after consonants and before other vowels as actually /j w/, considering that their distribution is not really predictable (i.e. why Tok[iː]o and Lithuan[iː]a but Californ[j]a and Pennsylvan[j]a?).

AmEng only allows CjV for some V excluding /ʌw/ (so Tokyo has to take an epenthetic vowel), but **/liθɨwejnjə/ isn't phonotactically invalid.

(Do /ɨ ə/ contrast in this environment? Would **Lithoania [ˌlɪθəʊ̯ˈeɪ̯nii̯ə] be possible? I think so, but I'm not sure how to contrive it in practice - Halloween is [hɑluu̯ii̯n]. But obviously you couldn't have anything like **[lɪθeɪ̯ˈʌʊ̯nii̯ə], so there's no ɨj-əj contrast.)

[Emily]

i'm skipping over the sections on [eɪ], [ɪi], [oʊ], [ʊu] since they're basically reiterating material from previous sections

aɪ
"When exceptionally emphatic it may become [ai]."

• lichen is most commonly [ˈlaɪkən] but sometimes [ˈlɪtʃən]
• sacrifice is generally pronounced with a final [-ˌfaɪs] or sometimes [-ˌfaɪs], "but only very rarely" [-ˌfɪs]
• bison is [ˈbaɪzn], but in england is often pronounced [ˈbɪsn]! (or [ˈbaɪsn])
• there is a long paragraph dedicated solely to the word roil "to make turbid". the most common pronunciation is [raɪl], especially in metaphorical senses where it may be spelled rile. this pronunciation is described as a holdover from 18th century english, and the paragraph states that "some old-fashioned folk" use [aɪ] for standard [ɔɪ], giving spoil, boil, join as examples. use of [raɪl] is universal in popular speech, but in cultivated use it has largely been supplanted with the spelling pronunciation [rɔɪl]
• words ending in -ile (servile, febrile, tactile, reptile, hostile) are generally pronounced [-ɪl], with [-aɪl] as a relatively common alternate form; in england [-aɪl] is standard with [-ɪl] being dialectal. agile, fragile are always [-ɪl], and gentile is always [-aɪl] — i have [-əl] for most of these, and have never heard [-ɪl]; nor have i ever heard anyone pronounce "reptile" without [-aɪl] lmao
• cowardice, favorite, genuine normally have [ɪ] in the last syllable, but often [aɪ] in popular speech; the author notes that he has "observed occasionally" this alternate pronunciation of cowardice "also in cultivated speech"
• some speakers, "especially family groups" (???), have [ɑɪ] instead of [aɪ], which "most persons regard as a rather 'mushy' pronunciation"; such speakers often render the diphthong [ɑə]
• [əɪ] for [aɪ] is "sometimes" heard "only in dialect and provincial speech"; the examples given are fine, time, and there is no mention of the alternation so widespread in present-day american english between the [əɪ] of "write" and the [aɪ] of "ride"
• "Occasionally one hears from the older generation, pronunciation like kind [kɪˈaɪnd], sky [skɪˈaɪ], with a slight [ɪ] glide vowel between the consonant and the diphthong. This was formerly a fashionable pronunciation, but has now almost completely disappeared."

ɑʊ
this diphthong is commonly spelled ou, ow; ough in slough and bough (though slough is often [sluː] in the western states, complete with alternate spellings); and au in words of foreign origin

• the british pronunciation is very commonly [aʊ] instead of [ɑʊ]; in new england and the south [æʊ] is often heard instead, though "in cultivated speech only as a Southernism" — mine has always sounded like, or at least similar to, [æʊ]
• think this may have been mentioned in a previous section, but a dialectal pronunciation "in several regions of the Atlantic seaboard" renders it [ɪˈɑʊ] after [k] or [g]: cow [kɪˈɑʊ], gout [gɪˈɑʊt]
• jowl "is not in general popular use, and for that reason has not acquired an established pronunciation"; the most common pronunciation is [dʒɑʊl], but [dʒoːl] is also heard
• enow is an archaic variant of enough chiefly found in verse, where it can rhyme ("rime") with either [-ɑʊ] or [-oʊ]
• blouse is usually [blɑʊz] or [blɑʊs], but "a more or less fashionable pronunciation" is [bluːz]

ɔɪ
this section reiterates the commentary above from roil; it notes that the general pronounciation of buoy, buoyant is [ɔɪ] but that the spelling pronunciations [buɪ-] are sometimes heard — i have [buɪ] but [bɔɪjənt] (using his transcription of course; i only have [ɔ] when i'm speaking german!)

ju, juː
he classifies this as a rising diphthong, referencing an earlier chapter where he notes that [j] in english is never "strongly consonantal" and that classifying this combination as a diphthong is for convenience more than anything else

• this pronunciation is uniform for the spelling of "long u" in initial position and after labial consonants ("lip consonants" lol): use, rebuke, butte, fusion, mile, view, spurious, spume
• before r it is usually lowered to [jʊ]: pure [pjuɹ ~ pjʊr], cure [kjuɹ ~ kjʊr], etc.; a [ɚ] glide is also sometimes heard before the [ɹ]
• the [j] is rarely heard after [l] or [r]: lute [luːt], rune [ruːn], etc.
• "usage varies wildly" after [d], [t], [θ], [n], [s]: tube may be [tjuːb] or [tuːb]; dictionaries and "academic authority" generally condemns the [uː] pronunciation as uncultivated, but it is very widespread even "in the speech of educated and informed people". he notes that it has long roots in the u.s., citing noah webster's 1789 defense of [uː] over [juː]. he also notes that [uː] instead of [juː] is less general in the south than in other regions
• [juː] is general after [k]: cube, cucumber, cuneiform; he notes that coupon [ˈkuːˌpɔn] is often [ˈkjuːˌpɔn] by analogy with these words
• after [g], however, the sound is rare: legume, leguminous, lugubrious, gubernatorial are all usually [uː], rarely [juː]
• the [j] is sometimes weakened in popular speech: accurate [ˈækjurɪt] becomes [ˈækərɪt], sinew [ˈsɪnju] becomes [ˈsɪnu], argue [ˈɑːɹgju] becomes [ˈɑːɹgɪ]
• [ˈfɪgɚɹ] for figure "is occasionally heard on the lips of cultivated speakers in America" but is much more common in england

---

and that does it for the vowels! we'll be going into the consonants next

[Travis B.]

• [ˈfɪgɚɹ] for figure "is occasionally heard on the lips of cultivated speakers in America" but is much more common in england

Apparently /ˈfɪɡjər/ is a spelling pronunciation, and apparently the "proper" pronunciation of figure is /ˈfɪɡər/. Thing is, as a kid, I had this backwards, and thought that the standard pronunciation was /ˈfɪɡjər/ and that /ˈfɪɡər/ was colloquial/dialectal.

[zompist]

[*]there is a long paragraph dedicated solely to the word roil "to make turbid". the most common pronunciation is [raɪl], especially in metaphorical senses where it may be spelled rile. this pronunciation is described as a holdover from 18th century english, and the paragraph states that "some old-fashioned folk" use [aɪ] for standard [ɔɪ], giving spoil, boil, join as examples.
and that does it for the vowels! we'll be going into the consonants next

I've seen "biled" for "boiled" in old sources, though I forget which. But I definitely boggle at "jine" for "join."

[bradrn]

• [ˈfɪgɚɹ] for figure "is occasionally heard on the lips of cultivated speakers in America" but is much more common in england

Apparently /ˈfɪɡjər/ is a spelling pronunciation, and apparently the "proper" pronunciation of figure is /ˈfɪɡər/. Thing is, as a kid, I had this backwards, and thought that the standard pronunciation was /ˈfɪɡjər/ and that /ˈfɪɡər/ was colloquial/dialectal.

I don’t think I have ever heard of anyone anywhere saying /ˈfɪɡjər/ before.

[Emily]

• [ˈfɪgɚɹ] for figure "is occasionally heard on the lips of cultivated speakers in America" but is much more common in england

Apparently /ˈfɪɡjər/ is a spelling pronunciation, and apparently the "proper" pronunciation of figure is /ˈfɪɡər/. Thing is, as a kid, I had this backwards, and thought that the standard pronunciation was /ˈfɪɡjər/ and that /ˈfɪɡər/ was colloquial/dialectal.

didn't you say you're in the US? /ˈfɪɡjər/ is definitely the standard here (in 2023 or in 1919), i don't think i've ever heard an american say /ˈfɪɡər/

[LingEarth]

words ending in -ile (servile, febrile, tactile, reptile, hostile) are generally pronounced [-ɪl], with [-aɪl] as a relatively common alternate form; in england [-aɪl] is standard with [-ɪl] being dialectal. agile, fragile are always [-ɪl], and gentile is always [-aɪl] — i have [-əl] for most of these, and have never heard [-ɪl]; nor have i ever heard anyone pronounce "reptile" without [-aɪl] lmao

I recall hearing "reptile" pronounced with [-əl] by someone in an old TV show from the 1940s or 50s; it sounded really weird to me.