Are "hour" & "our" homophones for you? For me "hour" rhymes with "flour", "tower", etc. but "our" rhymes with "cow", "how", etc. Same with "hours" verses "ours" they are not homophones. Is this an Aussie thing?
"Hour" and "our" homophones?
In my dialect, they are not homophones except in quite *formal* speech, as:
Informal/Semi-Formal:
"hour" : /aUr/ -> [aU@`]
"our" : /Ar/ -> [A:r\] or [a:r\]
Formal:
"hour" : /aUr/ -> [aU@`]
"our" : /aUr/ -> [aU@`]
These seems to be rather typical for spoken NAE as a whole today, even though it does vary, of course.
Informal/Semi-Formal:
"hour" : /aUr/ -> [aU@`]
"our" : /Ar/ -> [A:r\] or [a:r\]
Formal:
"hour" : /aUr/ -> [aU@`]
"our" : /aUr/ -> [aU@`]
These seems to be rather typical for spoken NAE as a whole today, even though it does vary, of course.
"Our" has long been pronounced [A:(r\)] in British English as well, especially in everyday speech as it happens in US English. My guess would be that this leveling of /aU/ for this function word happened centuries ago and has remained common on both sides of the pond.
For me:
"hour" ["{U@`]
"our" usually [Ar\], formally or emphatically ["{U@`]
For me:
"hour" ["{U@`]
"our" usually [Ar\], formally or emphatically ["{U@`]
For me "hour" and "our" are not homophones. "Hour" [aU@`] rhymes with "flour" and "tower" for me, but for me "our" is almost always [Ar\], rhyming with "car".
Since "our" is a short, usually unstressed function word, many dialects have simplified the historic disyllabic /aU@(r)/ into a monosyllable, resulting in "ar" or "ow". From what I've read and heard, "ow" seems to be rather Australia-specific.
Since "our" is a short, usually unstressed function word, many dialects have simplified the historic disyllabic /aU@(r)/ into a monosyllable, resulting in "ar" or "ow". From what I've read and heard, "ow" seems to be rather Australia-specific.
My pronunciation is the same as Kirk's. I do hear a lot of Aussie people say /{:o/ or /E:o/ for "our", and I believe some Kiwis have this tendency as well.
I rhyme "our" with "now" as well, but then, I'm an Australian. This is the only pronunciation, even in formal speech, unlike the American alternation between ar~hour. I had a teacher who had an otherwise normal AusE accent in high school, he say "our" to rhyme with "hour" and it was quite noticeable and odd.
Strange, I pronounce our in two ways indiscriminately - as a homophone to "hour" and like Kirk's pronunciation. Hmmm...
By the way Guy, I think you mean to say "[{:o] or [E:o]"; there's only one phonemic front, non-high backing diphthong in Australian English. Given the varied realisation of AusE /æ/, I don't think we'd have a hope of distinguishing between an /æ:o/ and an /E:o/ anyway!
And even still, an off-glide of [o] would be very unlikely in an Australian's speech. It's either hyper-formal/affected [U] (which would usually be [AU] in any case, as in "hahoo nahoo brahoon cahoo"), careful [O], or most commonly [@] in connected speech. (In the unstressed position "our" is often likely to find itself in, I also wouldn't be surprised if there was no off-glide, and you just had [æ:] or perhaps [E:].)
Lastly, these days more open values of /æ/ & the related /æO/ are preferred in informal speech, to the point where there is sometimes confusion between /æ/ (cat) and /a/ (cut). [E:@] is essentially limited to broad accents (at least in Australia), and broad accents are fewer and further between these days, much to the dismay now doubt of Holliwood. (Actually, this last para is a bit weird: it's in more relaxed, informal registers you find more open, [a]-like realisations of /æ/, and in more careful, formal registers you find closer, [E]-like realisations. Anyone who was trying to argue for the influence of foreign accents in motivating AusE phonetic change, would be dismayed over this point!)
On a completely different note, Jim and other Australians: Giving your first impressions, do you have a difference in the vowel in the words "pool" and "mule"? "pool" and "poo"? "poo" and "pew"? "cure" and "fewer"? "jewel" and "dual"? "cure" and "sewer"? "cure" and "lure"? "sewer" and "lure"? "lure" and "tour"? "cure", "lure" and "(en)dure"? "during" and "jury"? "cure" and "curious"?
I have perhaps worked out a generalisation as to the distribution of central and back vowels in the above groups and wonder how well it holds... I am very disappointed by the treatment of /U@/ in the literature on Australian English, which mostly says "BLARK!!", which may in fact be accurate, but doesn't seem to be very interesting.
And even still, an off-glide of [o] would be very unlikely in an Australian's speech. It's either hyper-formal/affected [U] (which would usually be [AU] in any case, as in "hahoo nahoo brahoon cahoo"), careful [O], or most commonly [@] in connected speech. (In the unstressed position "our" is often likely to find itself in, I also wouldn't be surprised if there was no off-glide, and you just had [æ:] or perhaps [E:].)
Lastly, these days more open values of /æ/ & the related /æO/ are preferred in informal speech, to the point where there is sometimes confusion between /æ/ (cat) and /a/ (cut). [E:@] is essentially limited to broad accents (at least in Australia), and broad accents are fewer and further between these days, much to the dismay now doubt of Holliwood. (Actually, this last para is a bit weird: it's in more relaxed, informal registers you find more open, [a]-like realisations of /æ/, and in more careful, formal registers you find closer, [E]-like realisations. Anyone who was trying to argue for the influence of foreign accents in motivating AusE phonetic change, would be dismayed over this point!)
On a completely different note, Jim and other Australians: Giving your first impressions, do you have a difference in the vowel in the words "pool" and "mule"? "pool" and "poo"? "poo" and "pew"? "cure" and "fewer"? "jewel" and "dual"? "cure" and "sewer"? "cure" and "lure"? "sewer" and "lure"? "lure" and "tour"? "cure", "lure" and "(en)dure"? "during" and "jury"? "cure" and "curious"?
I have perhaps worked out a generalisation as to the distribution of central and back vowels in the above groups and wonder how well it holds... I am very disappointed by the treatment of /U@/ in the literature on Australian English, which mostly says "BLARK!!", which may in fact be accurate, but doesn't seem to be very interesting.
BTW: Just to clarify, for the above, being different phonemes is a sufficient but not necessary condition for having different sounds e.g. "bowl" and "boat" and "bode" all have different vowels, even though they have the same phoneme.
"Blark"? (???)
I guess this has been covered, but my "our" can sound exactly like my "hour" or my "are". Has 2 syllables in the first version and 1 in the second.
I guess this has been covered, but my "our" can sound exactly like my "hour" or my "are". Has 2 syllables in the first version and 1 in the second.
<< "Blark"? (???) >>
When written in capitals and with two exclamation marks following, it means "Not much at all" or "This stuff is scary & complicated, and we won't follow it up further".
When written in capitals and with two exclamation marks following, it means "Not much at all" or "This stuff is scary & complicated, and we won't follow it up further".
<<I guess this has been covered, but my "our" can sound exactly like my "hour" or my "are". Has 2 syllables in the first version and 1 in the second.>>
Uriel sums it up nicely. My second "our" sounds like "are" too.
Uriel sums it up nicely. My second "our" sounds like "are" too.
<<I guess this has been covered, but my "our" can sound exactly like my "hour" or my "are". Has 2 syllables in the first version and 1 in the second.>>
Uriel sums it up nicely. My second "our" sounds like "are" too.
Uriel sums it up nicely. My second "our" sounds like "are" too.