Re: Pronunciations you had to unlearn
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:07 pm
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?Linguoboy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 2:47 pmSure, 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.
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).anteallach wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:22 amIs 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?Linguoboy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 2:47 pmSure, 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.
Apparently it's how people native to DC say Washington.Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:31 pm I thought that was some exaggerated "bumpkin" pronunciation that wasn't from any real dialect.
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").Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:58 pm 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).
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.)
Well make sure you're sitting down and have a responsible adult with you before you read this:
See, this is the sort of stuff about English dialects I like hearing about!Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 2:44 pmWell 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).
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. wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:26 amHaving 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.)
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...)Sol717 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:01 amI'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.
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/.Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 8:55 amCambridge 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...)Sol717 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:01 amI'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 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. wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 8:55 amCambridge 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...)Sol717 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:01 amI'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.
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 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:44 pmCambridge 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. wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 8:55 amCambridge 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...)Sol717 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:01 am
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.
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.Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:49 pmI 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.