Pronunciations you had to unlearn

[Raphael]

I'm kinda curious how that pronunciation came about now, though.

[Travis B.]

I'm kinda curious how that pronunciation came about now, though.

/ˈfɑvrə/ is a bit of a mouthful for the average NAE-speaker.

[Linguoboy]

I'm kinda curious how that pronunciation came about now, though.

/ˈfɑvrə/ is a bit of a mouthful for the average NAE-speaker.

Sure, but there are several other options. In many LA French varieties (he's from Gulfport, MS, which is right next door) this would be simplified to /ˈfɑv/, which is easy enough. I can also easily see it being anglicised to /ˈfavər/ or even /ˈfeːvər/. Metathesis would not have been my first guess.

[anteallach]

I'm kinda curious how that pronunciation came about now, though.

/ˈfɑvrə/ is a bit of a mouthful for the average NAE-speaker.

Sure, but there are several other options. In many LA French varieties (he's from Gulfport, MS, which is right next door) this would be simplified to /ˈfɑv/, which is easy enough. I can also easily see it being anglicised to /ˈfavər/ or even /ˈfeːvər/. Metathesis would not have been my first guess.

Is it possible that it actually was /fɑv/, and that this was interpreted as a non-rhotic take on /fɑrv/? There is historic non-rhoticity in that area, isn't there?

[Travis B.]

/ˈfɑvrə/ is a bit of a mouthful for the average NAE-speaker.

Sure, but there are several other options. In many LA French varieties (he's from Gulfport, MS, which is right next door) this would be simplified to /ˈfɑv/, which is easy enough. I can also easily see it being anglicised to /ˈfavər/ or even /ˈfeːvər/. Metathesis would not have been my first guess.

Is it possible that it actually was /fɑv/, and that this was interpreted as a non-rhotic take on /fɑrv/? There is historic non-rhoticity in that area, isn't there?

The only thing is that non-rhoticity is highly recessive in NAE outside of AAVE, in the South only remaining in a few isolated pockets, which means that if that was the case it'd have to be a rather old reanalysis of /fɑv/ as /fɑrv/. Of course, there are some NAE dialects that do have intrusive /r/ in certain words ("Warshington" for instance).

[Raphael]

Of course, there are some NAE dialects that do have intrusive /r/ in certain words ("Warshington" for instance).

Mind. Blown.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I thought that was some exaggerated "bumpkin" pronunciation that wasn't from any real dialect.

[Travis B.]

I thought that was some exaggerated "bumpkin" pronunciation that wasn't from any real dialect.

Apparently it's how people native to DC say Washington.

Correction: actually DC after all.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Do they do so with an actual intrusive /r/-sound, or is it just how other speakers perceive vowels in their dialect?

[foxcatdog]

[wɔ.ʃɪŋ.tən] or alternatively [wɔ.ʃɪŋ.tɔn] which i could say is a hypercorrection from original cot-caught merger ala america but it is how i also pronoun "washing"

[Sol717]

The only thing is that non-rhoticity is highly recessive in NAE outside of AAVE, in the South only remaining in a few isolated pockets, which means that if that was the case it'd have to be a rather old reanalysis of /fɑv/ as /fɑrv/. Of course, there are some NAE dialects that do have intrusive /r/ in certain words ("Warshington" for instance).

That phenomenon is possibly a hypercorrection of the (now probably extinct or nearly so) simplification of /ɹʃ/ to /ʃ/, which makes harsh marsh homophones of hash mash (c.f. also squarsh "squash" and the famous warsh "wash").

[wɔ.ʃɪŋ.tən] or alternatively [wɔ.ʃɪŋ.tɔn] which i could say is a hypercorrection from original cot-caught merger ala america but it is how i also pronoun "washing"

It's probably not hypercorrection; IIRC, /wɑ/ > /wɔ/ is quite common in AmE, though the following consonant may play a role in conditioning it (/wɔt͡ʃ/ seems more common than /wɔsp/).

[Travis B.]

[wɔ.ʃɪŋ.tən] or alternatively [wɔ.ʃɪŋ.tɔn] which i could say is a hypercorrection from original cot-caught merger ala america but it is how i also pronoun "washing"

It's probably not hypercorrection; IIRC, /wɑ/ > /wɔ/ is quite common in AmE, though the following consonant may play a role in conditioning it (/wɔt͡ʃ/ seems more common than /wɔsp/).

Having either LOT (e.g. in wasp) or CLOTH (e.g. as in wash) after /w/ for orthographic <wa> is simply Standard English to my knowledge. (It may seem NAE-specific though due to the general loss of CLOTH in much of EngE.)

[Linguoboy]

Of course, there are some NAE dialects that do have intrusive /r/ in certain words ("Warshington" for instance).

Mind. Blown.

Well make sure you're sitting down and have a responsible adult with you before you read this:

My native pronunciation of the word "water" is [ˈwʊɚ̯ɾɚ].

That's very specific to Baltimore (Philly accents have a /ʊ/ but no intrusive /r/), but I don't really think of intrusive /r/ in wash and Washington as dialect-specific. My dad had the latter and, true, he's from Maryland, but my younger brother said warsh as a child and he was all of 2 years old when we relocated to St Louis. It's a recessive feature, to be sure, but I remember it being reasonably common in my mother's generation (all St Louis-born and raised).

[Travis B.]

Of course, there are some NAE dialects that do have intrusive /r/ in certain words ("Warshington" for instance).

Mind. Blown.

Well make sure you're sitting down and have a responsible adult with you before you read this:

My native pronunciation of the word "water" is [ˈwʊɚ̯ɾɚ].

That's very specific to Baltimore (Philly accents have a /ʊ/ but no intrusive /r/), but I don't really think of intrusive /r/ in wash and Washington as dialect-specific. My dad had the latter and, true, he's from Maryland, but my younger brother said warsh as a child and he was all of 2 years old when we relocated to St Louis. It's a recessive feature, to be sure, but I remember it being reasonably common in my mother's generation (all St Louis-born and raised).

See, this is the sort of stuff about English dialects I like hearing about!

[Sol717]

[wɔ.ʃɪŋ.tən] or alternatively [wɔ.ʃɪŋ.tɔn] which i could say is a hypercorrection from original cot-caught merger ala america but it is how i also pronoun "washing"

It's probably not hypercorrection; IIRC, /wɑ/ > /wɔ/ is quite common in AmE, though the following consonant may play a role in conditioning it (/wɔt͡ʃ/ seems more common than /wɔsp/).

Having either LOT (e.g. in wasp) or CLOTH (e.g. as in wash) after /w/ for orthographic <wa> is simply Standard English to my knowledge. (It may seem NAE-specific though due to the general loss of CLOTH in much of EngE.)

I'm not aware of any evidence that such a change was ever fully accepted into standard BrE, though it'd be surprising if it didn't show up in a few of the orthoepists and pronouncing dictionaries. However, the traditional dialects of southern England do appear to have such forms; /wɔːɻʃ/ is even recorded for Somerset and Wiltshire.

[Travis B.]

It's probably not hypercorrection; IIRC, /wɑ/ > /wɔ/ is quite common in AmE, though the following consonant may play a role in conditioning it (/wɔt͡ʃ/ seems more common than /wɔsp/).

Having either LOT (e.g. in wasp) or CLOTH (e.g. as in wash) after /w/ for orthographic <wa> is simply Standard English to my knowledge. (It may seem NAE-specific though due to the general loss of CLOTH in much of EngE.)

I'm not aware of any evidence that such a change was ever fully accepted into standard BrE, though it'd be surprising if it didn't show up in a few of the orthoepists and pronouncing dictionaries. However, the traditional dialects of southern England do appear to have such forms; /wɔːɻʃ/ is even recorded for Somerset and Wiltshire.

Cambridge English Dictionary has LOT for wash and wasp for its "UK" pronunciations. (Note that I take this with a grain of salt as its "US" pronunciations are cot-caught merged...)

[anteallach]

Having either LOT (e.g. in wasp) or CLOTH (e.g. as in wash) after /w/ for orthographic <wa> is simply Standard English to my knowledge. (It may seem NAE-specific though due to the general loss of CLOTH in much of EngE.)

I'm not aware of any evidence that such a change was ever fully accepted into standard BrE, though it'd be surprising if it didn't show up in a few of the orthoepists and pronouncing dictionaries. However, the traditional dialects of southern England do appear to have such forms; /wɔːɻʃ/ is even recorded for Somerset and Wiltshire.

Cambridge English Dictionary has LOT for wash and wasp for its "UK" pronunciations. (Note that I take this with a grain of salt as its "US" pronunciations are cot-caught merged...)

LOT is the usual pronunciation for both in the UK. I checked the OED2 entries, which show /ɔː/ as an alternative where that was the pronunciation in conservative RP, for both, and they are only shown with /ɒ/.

If wash wasn't a CLOTH word in England, then that would support the idea that West Country /wɔːɻʃ/ originated as a hyper-correction of the loss of /r/ in /rʃ/. A similar explanation might work for the rhotic pronunciation of last recorded in the Survey of English Dialects in Shropshire, but you do also get what looks like straightforward hyper-correction of non-rhoticity; I've heard rhotic spa (not followed by a vowel).

[Space60]

Having either LOT (e.g. in wasp) or CLOTH (e.g. as in wash) after /w/ for orthographic <wa> is simply Standard English to my knowledge. (It may seem NAE-specific though due to the general loss of CLOTH in much of EngE.)

I'm not aware of any evidence that such a change was ever fully accepted into standard BrE, though it'd be surprising if it didn't show up in a few of the orthoepists and pronouncing dictionaries. However, the traditional dialects of southern England do appear to have such forms; /wɔːɻʃ/ is even recorded for Somerset and Wiltshire.

Cambridge English Dictionary has LOT for wash and wasp for its "UK" pronunciations. (Note that I take this with a grain of salt as its "US" pronunciations are cot-caught merged...)

Cambridge Dictionary doesn't do a very good job of representing US pronunciations. They list the US pronunciation of "was", "what", "from" and "of" as having LOT/PALM and the US pronunciation of "tomorrow" as having NORTH/FORCE.

[Travis B.]

I'm not aware of any evidence that such a change was ever fully accepted into standard BrE, though it'd be surprising if it didn't show up in a few of the orthoepists and pronouncing dictionaries. However, the traditional dialects of southern England do appear to have such forms; /wɔːɻʃ/ is even recorded for Somerset and Wiltshire.

Cambridge English Dictionary has LOT for wash and wasp for its "UK" pronunciations. (Note that I take this with a grain of salt as its "US" pronunciations are cot-caught merged...)

Cambridge Dictionary doesn't do a very good job of representing US pronunciations. They list the US pronunciation of "was", "what", "from" and "of" as having LOT/PALM and the US pronunciation of "tomorrow" as having NORTH/FORCE.

I hate the fact that practically all dictionaries that give separate "US" and "UK" pronunciations give cot-caught-merged "US" pronunciations, as a majority of Americans are not cot-caught merged.

[Space60]

Cambridge English Dictionary has LOT for wash and wasp for its "UK" pronunciations. (Note that I take this with a grain of salt as its "US" pronunciations are cot-caught merged...)

Cambridge Dictionary doesn't do a very good job of representing US pronunciations. They list the US pronunciation of "was", "what", "from" and "of" as having LOT/PALM and the US pronunciation of "tomorrow" as having NORTH/FORCE.

I hate the fact that practically all dictionaries that give separate "US" and "UK" pronunciations give cot-caught-merged "US" pronunciations, as a majority of Americans are not cot-caught merged.

For dictionary editors from the UK representing the distribution of the THOUGHT vowel in US English accurately is difficult due to the lot-cloth split which most UK speakers don't have. They may choose to represent cot-caught merged US varieties because it is easier for them to just replace what they have as THOUGHT with LOT/PALM everywhere.