Zompist Bboard Again

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:08 am**

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:31 pm
Space60 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:49 am The lot-cloth split is universal among North American varieties that lack that cot-caught merger as far as I know. Also North American English extended the lot-cloth split to positions before velars in "long", "dog" and "chocolate" which never occurred in the British version of the split. The split must have occurred centuries ago in Britain, elsewise North Americans likely wouldn't have it.
I don't think I've ever heard THOUGHT in "chocolate", except from New Englanders with the LOT-THOUGHT merger.

If I heard someone say "ch[ɑ]colate," I'd assume they were from B[ɑ]ston. Otherwise I've never heard "chocolate" with LOT.

Space60 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:04 am
anteallach wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:09 am
Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:56 pm

The question I have, then, is why did CLOTH=THOUGHT become completely dominant in North America then if it was at most affected in England?
It wasn't; it was also a feature of the traditional dialects of most of southern England, which will be where AmE got it from. The accents which didn't have it were more mainstream RP (as opposed to "U-RP") and near-RP (and also anything in the North). I don't know about long, dog, etc.
As far as I know, "long" and "dog" never had the THOUGHT vowel in any British dialects. This was a North American innovation. Speaking of "-og" words they tend to vary in Americans that have the lot-cloth split. "Dog" almost always has the THOUGHT vowel for those with the split other words like "log", "hog", "frog", "blog" etc. are variable.

I have THOUGHT in all of those except "blog"; "hog" can kind of go either way but it's also a word I've virtually never used. "Frog" and "log" with LOT is a feature that stands out to me in the accent of my Western New York relatives, including my mom's.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:43 pm**

Zaarin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:08 am
Nortaneous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:31 pm
Space60 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:49 am The lot-cloth split is universal among North American varieties that lack that cot-caught merger as far as I know. Also North American English extended the lot-cloth split to positions before velars in "long", "dog" and "chocolate" which never occurred in the British version of the split. The split must have occurred centuries ago in Britain, elsewise North Americans likely wouldn't have it.
I don't think I've ever heard THOUGHT in "chocolate", except from New Englanders with the LOT-THOUGHT merger.
If I heard someone say "ch[ɑ]colate," I'd assume they were from B[ɑ]ston. Otherwise I've never heard "chocolate" with LOT.[\quote]

I'm from Florida and have the same vowel in "chocolate" and "lot". I have the cot-caught merger and so there's no difference between the LOT and THOUGHT sets for me.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:39 pm**

Space60 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:43 pmI'm from Florida and have the same vowel in "chocolate" and "lot". I have the cot-caught merger and so there's no difference between the LOT and THOUGHT sets for me.

What part of Florida? I haven't noticed much COT-CAUGHT merger in my area, but my area is also made up predominantly of New Yorkers, Ontarians, and Midwesterners rather than native Floridians.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:09 pm**

anteallach wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:05 am
vegfarandi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:23 pm A famous instance is the reversal of flámæli in Icelandic, which involved the merger of /ɪ/ + /ɛ/ to /e/ and /ʏ/ + /œ/ to /ø/. This was nearly completely wiped out by the middle of the 20th century using the iron fist of centralized education curricula.
What was its social/regional distribution?

It was most prominent in South and East Iceland, and 42% of children in Reykjavík (South West) had it in 1929. By 1960 no children had it in Reykjavík.

The newest sound change with roughly the same distribution and probably same statistics in Reykjavík currently is called höggmæli which turns <b d g> /p t k/ into a glottal stop before a nasal so höfn /hœpn/ [hœʔn] 'harbor', horn /hɔtn/ [hɔʔn] 'corner, horn', and gögn /kœkn/ [gœʔn] 'data'. But unlike the 1940s-60s, there's no effort to eliminate this change. Maybe there's less agitation behind it as it is mostly just a phonetic thing as opposed to fundamentally altering the phonemic system which flámæli did.

But flámæli balanced the vowel system to one where there were two phones per level of openness across front, front-rounded and back as opposed to the current system which has three levels for front and front-rounded and only two for back. Phonemically, there's an imbalance built into the system and I think there'll always be some general tendency for the language community to level that out.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:36 pm**

Zaarin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:08 am If I heard someone say "ch[ɑ]colate," I'd assume they were from B[ɑ]ston. Otherwise I've never heard "chocolate" with LOT.

This both confirms to me that I don't split LOT/THOUGHT (or COT/CAUGHT), but also help me better understand what /ɑ/ sounds like, at least in English.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:04 am**

As far as I can tell, I have THOUGHT in all -og/-ong/-onk words. (Except Bronx. Yonkers is allegedly supposed to have FATHER too, but I don't hear it enough not to have the obvious spelling pronunciation.)

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:23 am
Nortaneous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:31 pmI don't think I've ever heard THOUGHT in "chocolate", except from New Englanders with the LOT-THOUGHT merger.
Really? ch[ɔ]colate is normal for me... haven't you noticed the folksy spelling "chawklit"?

Can't say I've ever seen that. If it's a Midland thing, that'd explain why I haven't heard it.

Zaarin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:08 am If I heard someone say "ch[ɑ]colate," I'd assume they were from B[ɑ]ston. Otherwise I've never heard "chocolate" with LOT.

What Boston are you thinking of? The dialect there - the one I hear when I'm up there, at least, and from the people I know who grew up there (aside from the Anglos and Swedes, who speak GA) - has [ɔ] for LOT.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:30 pm**

Zaarin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:08 amIf I heard someone say "ch[ɑ]colate," I'd assume they were from B[ɑ]ston. Otherwise I've never heard "chocolate" with LOT.

Wait, what? Seriously? I say that.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:13 pm**

Vijay wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:30 pm
Zaarin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:08 amIf I heard someone say "ch[ɑ]colate," I'd assume they were from B[ɑ]ston. Otherwise I've never heard "chocolate" with LOT.
Wait, what? Seriously? I say that.

Yeah and apparently this pronunciation of "chocolate" with the LOT vowel is common enough in America that they have "Choco Tacos" as a brand of ice cream bar. Merriam Webster online lists "chocolate" with the LOT vowel first, THOUGHT second. Of course for many Americans there is no difference between the vowel in LOT and THOUGHT.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:20 pm**

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:04 am
Zaarin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:08 am If I heard someone say "ch[ɑ]colate," I'd assume they were from B[ɑ]ston. Otherwise I've never heard "chocolate" with LOT.
What Boston are you thinking of? The dialect there - the one I hear when I'm up there, at least, and from the people I know who grew up there (aside from the Anglos and Swedes, who speak GA) - has [ɔ] for LOT.

The stereotypical one--the non-rhotic accent that merges COT-CAUGHT as COT. No one I've known or heard from Boston has actually had that accent, though.

Space60 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:13 pm
Vijay wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:30 pm
Zaarin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:08 amIf I heard someone say "ch[ɑ]colate," I'd assume they were from B[ɑ]ston. Otherwise I've never heard "chocolate" with LOT.
Wait, what? Seriously? I say that.
Yeah and apparently this pronunciation of "chocolate" with the LOT vowel is common enough in America that they have "Choco Tacos" as a brand of ice cream bar. Merriam Webster online lists "chocolate" with the LOT vowel first, THOUGHT second. Of course for many Americans there is no difference between the vowel in LOT and THOUGHT.

Maybe I've heard LOT in chocolate and my brain parsed it as unremarkable, but I can't consciously remember hearing LOT in chocolate from anyone who didn't have LOT for both COT/CAUGHT. I have heard chocolate as three syllables, which my brain found remarkable enough to note...

I would have LOT in Choco Taco simply because it's obviously supposed to rhyme.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:46 pm**

Zaarin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:20 pm The stereotypical one--the non-rhotic accent that merges COT-CAUGHT as COT. No one I've known or heard from Boston has actually had that accent, though.

It's more common than nonrhoticity - I've met people with rhoticity but LOT = THOUGHT != FATHER, but not people with nonrhoticity and LOT != THOUGHT - but it's harder to notice, since [ɑ] and [ɔ] sound pretty similar.

(I map the merged vowel straightforwardly to my /ɔ/, except, being from south of Connecticut and right off I-95, mine can diphthongize to [ɔɐ] and theirs can't)

Space60 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:13 pm I can't consciously remember hearing LOT in chocolate from anyone who didn't have LOT for both COT/CAUGHT.

same

I have heard chocolate as three syllables, which my brain found remarkable enough to note...

I've only ever heard this from someone who grew up in Thailand and had an accent, and it was p. salient, especially since she pronounced it as a non-nativized loanword from French.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:06 pm**

Zaarin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:20 pm I would have LOT in Choco Taco simply because it's obviously supposed to rhyme.

Wait, "taco" has LOT!?

Here, it has TRAP. And "lot" has LOT. So, one's front, one's back, and one's unrounded, one's rounded, and they're different heights...

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:35 pm**

Taco has TRAP?! Here it invariably has PALM. "T[æ]co", much the less the "t[ɛ]co" you'd get around here, just sounds so wrong.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:56 pm**

I think I've heard both [ɑ] and [æ] for that. I use [ɑ] myself; I might have heard [æ] from a British source or a Canadian(??) source or an Indian source or something.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:36 pm**

From video game playthroughs I know that some Canadians (e.g. brisulph) have a TRAP vowel in "Mario" and "lava", so maybe taco too.

I would read Choco with /o/, as I have when I've seen it in the past. Hyperforeignism maybe but tacos are Spanish so id be tempted to read Choco as Spanish too. And no, they wouldn't rhyme in my dialect even if I used the vowel of chocolate because I use a true /a/ for words like taco and lava.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:07 pm**

I personally would pronounce Choco Taco as [ˌtʃʰokoˈtʰako(ː)] myself.

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:27 am**

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:35 pm Taco has TRAP?! Here it invariably has PALM. "T[æ]co", much the less the "t[ɛ]co" you'd get around here, just sounds so wrong.

Just the usual UK/US divide on "foreign a". "T[ɑː]co" sounds ridiculously pretentious to me, and as TRAP is generally [a] round here also sounds less authentic...

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:18 pm**

F[æ]va beans and a nice Chi[æ]nti.

anteallach wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:27 am"T[ɑː]co" sounds ridiculously pretentious to me, and as TRAP is generally [a] round here also sounds less authentic...

It has [a] in Spanish though, so why would that be less authentic?

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:03 pm**

I think anteallach is saying that TRAP is generally [a] around Yorkshire, which is the same as the [a] in Spanish, so [ɑ] sounds less authentic.

Pabappa wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:36 pmFrom video game playthroughs I know that some Canadians (e.g. brisulph) have a TRAP vowel in "Mario" and "lava", so maybe taco too.

I knew a Canadian guy who also kept saying Ob[æ]ma, even when speaking Spanish.

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:28 pm**

Vijay wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:03 pm I think anteallach is saying that TRAP is generally [a] around Yorkshire, which is the same as the [a] in Spanish, so [ɑ] sounds less authentic.

Oh, yeah, I just totally misread it. Whoops.

Re: Pabappa's post, I've actually heard someone from New Jersey pronounce the name Mario with [æ], so I guess for him it's just part of the MARRY set. (I have no clue if this was just idiosyncratic to him or how widespread it might be.)

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:40 pm**

Whimemsz wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:28 pm
Vijay wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:03 pm I think anteallach is saying that TRAP is generally [a] around Yorkshire, which is the same as the [a] in Spanish, so [ɑ] sounds less authentic.
Oh, yeah, I just totally misread it. Whoops.

Re: Pabappa's post, I've actually heard someone from New Jersey pronounce the name Mario with [æ], so I guess for him it's just part of the MARRY set. (I have no clue if this was just idiosyncratic to him or how widespread it might be.)

I have heard "Mario" pronounced like that. I have also heard "Mario" said by some people like "Mairio" with a Mary-marry merged vowel.

Zompist Bboard Again

Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?

Re: Can phonemic mergers reverse?