|
|
PAWS, PAUSE, AND PORES
I think ti was a misunderstanding. "Pa" as in father does have a long "a" for me. This "a" and the "au" are the same sound in my accent. I jsut did not recognize that word and thus pronounced it as I saw it. Like "pass" without the double s :).
Guest, the vowel in loss is the same as in pause for me. There's lots left to merge! You just wait ;)
Yes, Tiffany, sorry to cause confusion but I meant the plural of "pa," which is "pas." I don't use the word "pa" very often (really, never) but it did serve as a good example so I decided to use it.
<<There's no "lause" but there is a "clause" so "las/laws/(c)lause" I pronounce with the same vowel.>> What about the vowel in "loss"? >> Yes, "loss" has the same vowel phonemically but since it's followed by an unvoiced consonant it's not produced as long as the ones before /z/ like in "las/laws/(c)lause" so I avoided using that as a comparison. But yes, it is the same vowel. Here are my pronunciations: "laws" [lA:z] "las" [lA:z] "clause" [klA:z] "loss" [lAs] <<Is there anything left to merge? :-)>> Haha, sure. And plenty of potential to split, too. All varieties of Modern English have merged some sounds together which were at once distinctive in older English, and many varieties have also experienced splits between sounds which were separate in older English. In fact, one example of a merger I don't have is that of pairs like "pore/paw" or "lore/law" or "farther/father" while nonrhotic speakers have merged these sounds. Due to relatively recent allophonic innovations, I also have different vowels in areas where one used to be present. For instance, I have a different vowel in "beg" and "bed." Due to my /Eg/ raising I have [e] there and due to my /E/ lowering I often have something approaching /{/ there. While this isn't a true phonemic split, it is a good example of how English dialects are constantly moving and shifting around vowels. Sometimes they even are undergoing processes of merging and splitting in different environments at the same time.
I'm aware that there are numerous regional various in the pronunciations of these words but for now I'm really just concerned with how these words are "supposed" to be pronounced in both RP and GAE.
Also, not everyone in the New York metropolitan area uses a New York accent. As a matter of fact, it's only prevalent in certain neighbourhoods and only by certain groups of people who in some cases are trying to project a certain "macho" image. It's also used by older speakers much more than by younger speakers. The only younger speakers who still use the accent are those who fit a certain stereotype which I'm NOT going to get into but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about if you're from the area or familiar with the area. Even on "The Sopranos", the kids (Meadow and Anthony Jr.) speak "regular" American English and only the parents and the "wise guys" in the mob use the accent. While the accent is certainly not dead, it is really becoming the exception rather than the rule. Most young, educated, white people these days simply use GAE. This is not, of course, akin to the situation in London where Cockney (or popular London) is the rule and RP is the exception. However, you ARE right. Those New Yorkers who do still cling to the accent DO have a certain way of pronouncing "paws" and "pause" and even (in the rougher versions of the accent) "pores" so that they sound the same (they all the the American version of the thought vowel which in New Yorkese does have a certain "awe" sound to it). This doesn't sound too bad when they are pronouncing "paws" and "pause" (although it doesn't sound too good either) but it DOES sound awful (no pun intended) when that particular vowel sound is used for "pores" (which in GAE is rhotic). The RP pronunciation, although also non-rhotic like New Yorkese, nevertheless sounds very different from the NY pronunciation since the "thought" vowel has a different realisation in RP than it does in GAE, or even in New Yorkese.
I'm aware that there are numerous regional various in the pronunciations of these words but for now I'm really just concerned with how these words are "supposed" to be pronounced in both RP and GAE.
Conservative General American has the following for pronunciations: "paws" [p_hO:z] "pause" [p_hO:z] "pores" [p_hOr\z] "pas" [p_hA:z] about 40-50% of Americans are "cot-caught" merged, and many of them would be popularly considered to speak pretty "neutral" American English, conservative General American traditionally is not "cot-caught" merged.
<<This is not, of course, akin to the situation in London where Cockney (or popular London) is the rule and RP is the exception.>>
London (and its surrounding areas) is the one place where you will hear RP spoken regularly. RP, Cockney and Estuary are South East accents and as such they share a lot in common. The main difference is that RP is a conscious choice to pronounce words "properly". You will be unlikely to hear RP accents in Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds or Newcastle. However, what you will hear is a more general accent used by educated people and professionals which you would find easy to understand because it's clear and stripped of pretention. I don't see what can be achieved through comparing RP to American non-rhotic accents. England is full of rhotic and non-rhotic accents. Most people are generally familiar with broad rhotic South West English accents through the characters of Pirates and sailors................. Aaarh, Jim lad you old lan'lubber! It makes about as much sense, therefore, to compare GAE to the South West. Actually, given where the Pilgrim Fathers sailed from probably even more sense.
Well I'll just write that these words are all pronounced the same by me.
My pronunciation:
paws /p_hA:z/ ~ /p_hQ:z/ pause /p_hA:z/ ~ /p_hQ:z/ pores /p_ho@`z/ pas /p_hA:z/ They can all be pronounced the same except "pores". I have a dipthong /o@`/ in "pores".
Loss would have the same vowel for me as laws and clause but I would hold the latter two longer. Paws and pause are identical to me.
<<Loss would have the same vowel for me as laws and clause but I would hold the latter two longer.>>
Yeah, that's because in English when vowels are followed by voiced consonants they're usually produced longer (this is indicated by a colon in X-SAMPA and a similar-looking symbol in IPA). You and I (being "cot-caught" merged folk) both have the following pronunciations for the following words--compare the length: "laws" [lA:z] "loss" [lAs] "maws" [mA:z] "moss" [mAs] "clawed" [klA:d] "clot" [klAt] "draws" [dr\A:z] "dross" [dr\As] "sawed" [sA:d] "sot" [sAt] With us frequently exposing you to X-SAMPA/IPA I figure you're probably picking up a lot of by osmosis :)
You're dying for me to learn it, aren't you? ;)
I would imagine that very, very few Americans are descended from the Pilgrims, Rick. They weren't even the first permanent English colony here, and seeing as how New Englanders have a pretty distinctive accent that doesn't sound anything like the rest of the country, the similarities between general American and SW English accents probably have a lot more to do with other immigrants than those sourpusses...
<<I would imagine that very, very few Americans are descended from the Pilgrims, Rick. They weren't even the first permanent English colony here, and seeing as how New Englanders have a pretty distinctive accent that doesn't sound anything like the rest of the country, the similarities between general American and SW English accents probably have a lot more to do with other immigrants than those sourpusses...>>
If you noticed, my point really was to compare one absurd comparison RP with non-rhotic A.E. with one which I felt was equally absurd.
I pronounce "pours" and "poor's" differently:
pours - [pOr\z] poor's - [pU@r\z] |