This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Phonological history of English open back vowels was split to Cot-caught merger on 12 December 2016 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
I was reading the talk between Grover and Jack and I was left slightly confused. They agrued that r's shouldn't effect the cot-caught merger and that words containing r's have the same potential. My first reaction was you've got to be kidding me no way are stock and stork similar. However, relooking at it there is potential here for the cot-caught merger to branch into two areas. Non-rhotic dialocts (which tend to not pronounce r's) like Boston which use the merger have the potential since words like father and farther are already homophones. North Mideast is strict rhotic where r's almost always affect the pronounciation. People from these areas actually consider non-rheotic English to be mangled/mispronounced English (yes, I know what American dialect isn't mangled English; I'm just telling you the mindset of the area I live in). Thus to merge stork and stock is unspeakable even with cot and caught merged Nice or in evil ( talk) 06:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm reading this as cot-cot merger. Maybe someone would be kind enough to upload audio so that I can hear the difference? 63.95.64.254 ( talk) 00:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
This section (quoted below) is taken directly from the PBS "Do You Speak American" website (here: http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/midwest/ )
"The latter seems to be the source of its introduction into the Midwest as it appears to be spreading eastward. A recent survey directed by William Labov of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that the merger can be found today among younger generations (roughly people under 40) in Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. It is also heard across much of Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri. Similarly, the merger affects central portions of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, though its appearance in these areas may represent a westward expansion of the change from Pennsylvania."
Jefs ( talk) 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
In the section Father-bother merger, the following is asserted:
The father-bother merger is a merger of the Early Modern English vowels /ɑː/ and /ɒ/ that occurs in almost all varieties of North American English . . . . In those accents with the merger father and bother rhyme, and Kahn and con are homophonous as [kɑn]. . . .
It seems to me that the Kahn/con example should belong in the section on the Cot-caught merger, not the Father-bother merger. Isn't the kahn/con pair treated exactly like dawn/don and pawned/pond? These latter pairs are (correctly) categorized under the Cot-caught merger, not the Father-bother merger.
I checked the revision history, and this assertion was added way back on 22 December 2005. So it seems odd that it could have lasted so long if it is false. Can anyone verify this? — Lawrence King ( talk) 04:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Here is a quick summary: the relevant lexical sets in the open area are TRAP, LOT, BATH, CLOTH, PALM, THOUGHT, START, NORTH, FORCE
The father-bother merger could also be called the PALM-LOT merger. The Cot-Caught merger could also be called the LOT-THOUGHT merger. Many people prefer minimal-pairs or near-minimal-pairs (as in cot-caught or father-bother) because they are simply more memorable.
As for sound files, you can get some idea from the samples at Open back unrounded vowel and Open back rounded vowel. There are some websites with sound files for different dialects of English, but unfortunately I can't find them right now. Perhaps another editor can help. Grover cleveland ( talk) 05:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that a lot of Americans seem to pronounce a few words with the short O. The list of words that use it is very small, so they don't use it often - and not all Americans use it. However, one of the words that is definitely on the list is "what". Some pronounce it with a short "ah", some with a very short "uh", but quite a lot of people pronounce it with the English short "o" as in "hot". Has this been noticed, and if so, is it mentioned on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter? The word "want" doesn't seem to be on the list, though - many more people pronounce that word with the "ah" sound. 90.209.112.76 ( talk) 20:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. In American schools we use the term "short O" to refer specifically to the sound in "hot", "cot", "cloth"; I had not heard the term "short O" used for a sound that does not exist in most American dialects. Do you know the IPA term for this sound that appears only in England and in a few Americans' "what"? From what you say I am guessing you mean /ɒː/ but I'm not sure. — Lawrence King ( talk) 17:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify. No American would pronounce what as /wɒt/. It was probably a [wʌ̞t].--
TheAmericanizator (
talk)
17:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
References
My dictionaries and everywhere else seem to claim that "calm" is supposed to rhyme with "bomb". As a basically GA speaker, this has always seemed strange to me, as "calm", "palm", etc. in my speech have the vowel of "caught", not the "cot" vowel; i.e. they sound as if written "caum", "paum", etc. I've been asking people recently how they pronounce these words, and what I actually hear most often is "callm" i.e. the /l/ gets sounded. (I'm not sure about the vowel quality before it. Many of my friends have the cot-caught merger so it wouldn't be relevant anyway.) Note that none of these speakers pronounces the l in "walk" or "talk". Is this an incipient (spelling-influenced) sound change? Anyone with evidence? Benwing ( talk) 01:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to contradict the chart on Great Vowel Shift in describing how vowels changed and when they changed. At first I tried to change the article to be more consistent with the other article, but then I noticed there were references to a published book text, and I couldn't fundamentally change the details without deleting this reference, and I can't check the reference because it seems to be academic shelfware. So here I mark the article as contradictory. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 23:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
In the section 16th century changes, it says "The diphthong /ɔʊ/ found in low and soul had become /oʊ/." and it also says "There were thus three low back monophthongs at this time: /ɔ/ as in dog, /ɔː/ as in low and (before /r/), in more and /ɒ/ in corn." In other words, it says that the word low was pronounced as /loʊ/ and it also says it was pronounced /lɔː/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rectipaedia ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Lot and cloth have the same vowel in at least some dialects of American English. The section lists several identical vowels [such as lot and cloth] as if they are supposed to contrast, and several contrasting vowels [such as bother vs. bongo] as if they are supposed to be identical. Either the split hasn't affected all dialects of AmE, or it has been followed by a lot-cloth merger in at least some dialects of AmE. Either way the section should mention this. 96.231.17.131 ( talk) 16:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I found something interesting, a statistical study from 2013 where one of the questions is if you pronounce "caught" and "cot" the same way. It has 3 maps which illustrate the results. I have no idea if its license allows it to be used, etc, but if someone is not as lazy as me, maybe they can research it and if possible incorporate it into the article. Here is the link. 77.70.30.216 ( talk) 16:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC) P.S. It's question number 28 in the drop-down menu on the left. 77.70.30.216 ( talk) 16:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Does cot-caught merger affect the syllabification of words? For example, without the merger, the syllabification of daughter is /ˈdɔ.tɚ/ and that of potter is /ˈpɑt.ɚ/ in American English, as the accented “short” vowel /ɑ/ must be followed by a consonant. How does a person with the merger, who pronounces daughter as /ˈdɑ.tɚ/, syllabify potter? /ˈpɑt.ɚ/ (like paut-er) or /ˈpɑ.tɚ/ (like pau-ter)? — TAKASUGI Shinji ( talk) 04:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I won't unilaterally change this, but it has to be noted that the Deterding and Hvitfeldt paper cited for the merger of cot and caught in Singaporean English does not indicate what vowel the words have merged to. The way the article is written implies that both vowels are merged to /ɑ/, which is what it is in the American English merger. But the Deterding and Hvitfeldt paper also shows that the two vowels under consideration in Singapore English are /ɔ/ (caught) and /ɒ/ (cot). Whatever the merged vowel is, it is definitely not /ɑ/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelicularities ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Pelicularities ( talk) 17:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Do people actually go into cities and study or do they just assume that all surrounding states speak the same??? Cot (ky-t/kah-t) does not rhyme with caught (caw-ght or court depending on area) in Baltimore so I don't know why we are linked in with that... Chic3z ( talk) 16:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is called "Phonological history of English low back vowels", but it ends up focusing almost entirely on developments in American English. It needs a lot more sections on developments in other accent areas.
Doesn't the cot-caught merger have its own page? In which case a whole load of detail could be offloaded into that and sections could be added on non-American low back vowels without making the article too long. 82.14.34.119 ( talk) 11:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The two pronunciations under "merged" are not the same. If they are supposed to be showing someone speaking with the merger, shouldn't they sound identical? Now I'm not sure I understand what a merger is. The files under "not merged" sound completely different than each other to be sure, whereas the "merged" files sound more similar, but there is definitely a difference in the "merged" files. Can someone please explain? These are great though, I wish they could be added to all the mergers as examples. But I need a little more explanation because if I can hear the difference in the pronunciation of the "merged" clips it hurts the credibility (for me) of the rest of the article. Is this some kind of partial merging going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.97.99 ( talk) 21:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Under "16th century changes", it reads "The diphthong /aʊ/ found in words such as cause, law, all, salt, psalm, half, change, chamber, dance had become an open back monophthong /ɒː/." However, on a different Wikipedia page, Phonological History of English, it says that /aʊ/ was monophthongized to /ɔː/. So, I am left confused. What actually happened? Any insight is appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.218.18 ( talk) 22:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I have made the adjustments myself to be consistent with the other Wikipedia page. From my experience, this inconsistency developed from one source: Barber. So, it is probably wisest not to use that source. Pages from the same site should be consistent with each other so that readers are not terribly confused (like how I was). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.218.18 ( talk) 21:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I am a little confused. In addition to describing the lot-cloth split, the article says that "Similar changes took place in words with <a>." This is where I am confused. To start:
However:
The article does say that, although the lot-cloth split was originally in RP, "today words of this group almost always have short /ɒ/ in RP." Therefore, the previous split in British English could be considered a weak split.
So, as the two splits are not found in the same accent, are the two splits really related to each other, or did they occur independently of each other? I would appreciate if somebody could help me out. Thank you. 74.102.216.186 ( talk) 00:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Forget it. The two are possibly said to be related because they occur in similar environment. For example, the lengthening of the short /ɒ/ and short /æ/ both occur before /θ/. Over and out. 74.102.216.186 ( talk) 23:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the article reads that the cot-caught merger has taken place in
I feel that the line is too vague, and it should be clarified. I was able to access the listed source. However, the problem is that the information is given in the form of a map.
Although I feel the sentence should be removed from the article, this is only my opinion. And I want to hear somebody else's opinion first. Thank you. LakeKayak ( talk) 15:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I have a question about the location of the following line:
Although the line currently is under the section Cot-caught merger, should this be under the section Lot-cloth split instead? I wish to hear someone's opinion before I make the change. Thank you. LakeKayak ( talk) 17:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have heard nobody's opinion for or against. And I have learned from experience that, when people have opinions, they tend to voice them. So, I am going to make that change. However, if anybody reverts the edit, then I'll let it be. Thank you. LakeKayak ( talk) 19:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Now we have a separate page for the cot-caught merger, we should reduce the current section on this page to a short summary. Assuming there are no longer any objections to having the separate article (I think it makes sense). W. P. Uzer ( talk) 20:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the article says as follows:
The word "profit" in particular caught my eye. It may have to do with an open-syllable versus a closed-syllable. The word "profit" in particular is usually pronounced /prɑ.fɪt/. Therefore, the triggered vowel is in an open syllable. On the other hand, "Boston" is pronounced as /bɔːs.tən/. So, the triggered vowel is in a closed syllable. There are still irregularities like "roster," "offer," and "impostor." However, that could clear up some of the inconsistencies. LakeKayak ( talk) 21:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, I guess that is another irregularity this split has. For example, In the /-f/ section, it said it had no exception; which, of course is not true. Otherwise words like ophthalmology and its derivatives would all have the /ɔ/ sound, but they don't, they all have /ɑ/. Found in speakers who still retain the /-f-/ pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.84.20.126 ( talk) 18:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I really feel this line is redundant. A previous line says similarly:
Therefore, the former should be removed in the article. If anybody objects, then they should speak now. Thank you. LakeKayak ( talk) 03:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I think I am going to remove the line, anyway. It really seems like we are dumbing down the page, here. This is not how I feel a Wikipedia page should be written. Thank you. LakeKayak ( talk) 03:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@ LakeKayak, could you explain your revert of my changing /aʊ/, /ɔʊ/, /oʊ/ to /au/, /ɔu/, /ou/? I think there is no warrant for using the rather specific symbol ⟨ʊ⟩ here, as the offglide of the diphthongs is a non-specific high back rounded vowel. But I don't know what the sources use, as none are cited (or whether their reasoning is good or bad). — Eru· tuon 02:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@ LakeKayak: How would you like that section to be expanded? Apart from a table of homophones, I'm not sure how much more we can write about it. The merger is highly unusual and most speakers don't have it. Mr KEBAB ( talk) 22:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
What exactly does the "Table" on this page show us without any reference to time or location? Can we add a time-frame to it (particular spans of years/centuries, for example)? It seems to be pulled straight from Wells, but without any context or even page number given. Wolfdog ( talk) 21:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
LakeKayak: I'm intrigued, regarding the fact that "In many dialects of English, the vowel /oʊ/ has undergone fronting", you've written an accompanying comment as follows: "Note to editors, this seems to be worth-noting on "a" Wikipedia page. However, which one remains in question. Therefore, if you don't think this is the appropriate page for this material, we can discuss this one on the talk page". I think this is a great topic to discuss, since /oʊ/ (GOAT) fronting, and in fact the quality of the /oʊ/ vowel overall, appears to be one of the major differentiating features of varieties of English, much like the cot-caught merger. General American, RP, and Australian/NZ /oʊ/ vowels are quite clearly distinguished even among everyday speakers of English and even in popular imitations of these accents. I also think a "History" of these divergent developments in the /oʊ/ vowel (such changes in the vowel being relatively recent, mostly just in the last century or so) would have a lot of research and information to present. Wolfdog ( talk) 14:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this is an acceptable place for this information as it's preferable to categorise stuff according to the present than the past and will remove the inline comment if no one disagrees. I added a see also link to English-language vowel changes before historic /l/#Goat split which discusses a new phoneme that arose in some of these Southern dialects (mine included) as a result of the vowel holding out against fronting before /l/s in codas. For the record, this ref which I just added to the THOUGHT-GOAT merger section also talks about fronting of the monophthongal Northern GOAT vowel [oː] to [ɵː] throughout the North East so it might be worth mentioning that too. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 19:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Any chance of providing soundfiles of what these are talking about? It's going completely over my head. 50.194.115.156 ( talk) 13:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Dankpods ( talk) 20:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Queen Elizabeth has died, so her inclusion in the section on the LOT-CLOTH split is now moot; if someone adds it back I won't change it, but would it not be sensical to use the her as an example of how the LOT-CLOTH split "still exists" in older RP speakers. LinguaNerd ( talk) 23:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Phonological history of English open back vowels was split to Cot-caught merger on 12 December 2016 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
I was reading the talk between Grover and Jack and I was left slightly confused. They agrued that r's shouldn't effect the cot-caught merger and that words containing r's have the same potential. My first reaction was you've got to be kidding me no way are stock and stork similar. However, relooking at it there is potential here for the cot-caught merger to branch into two areas. Non-rhotic dialocts (which tend to not pronounce r's) like Boston which use the merger have the potential since words like father and farther are already homophones. North Mideast is strict rhotic where r's almost always affect the pronounciation. People from these areas actually consider non-rheotic English to be mangled/mispronounced English (yes, I know what American dialect isn't mangled English; I'm just telling you the mindset of the area I live in). Thus to merge stork and stock is unspeakable even with cot and caught merged Nice or in evil ( talk) 06:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm reading this as cot-cot merger. Maybe someone would be kind enough to upload audio so that I can hear the difference? 63.95.64.254 ( talk) 00:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
This section (quoted below) is taken directly from the PBS "Do You Speak American" website (here: http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/midwest/ )
"The latter seems to be the source of its introduction into the Midwest as it appears to be spreading eastward. A recent survey directed by William Labov of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that the merger can be found today among younger generations (roughly people under 40) in Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. It is also heard across much of Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri. Similarly, the merger affects central portions of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, though its appearance in these areas may represent a westward expansion of the change from Pennsylvania."
Jefs ( talk) 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
In the section Father-bother merger, the following is asserted:
The father-bother merger is a merger of the Early Modern English vowels /ɑː/ and /ɒ/ that occurs in almost all varieties of North American English . . . . In those accents with the merger father and bother rhyme, and Kahn and con are homophonous as [kɑn]. . . .
It seems to me that the Kahn/con example should belong in the section on the Cot-caught merger, not the Father-bother merger. Isn't the kahn/con pair treated exactly like dawn/don and pawned/pond? These latter pairs are (correctly) categorized under the Cot-caught merger, not the Father-bother merger.
I checked the revision history, and this assertion was added way back on 22 December 2005. So it seems odd that it could have lasted so long if it is false. Can anyone verify this? — Lawrence King ( talk) 04:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Here is a quick summary: the relevant lexical sets in the open area are TRAP, LOT, BATH, CLOTH, PALM, THOUGHT, START, NORTH, FORCE
The father-bother merger could also be called the PALM-LOT merger. The Cot-Caught merger could also be called the LOT-THOUGHT merger. Many people prefer minimal-pairs or near-minimal-pairs (as in cot-caught or father-bother) because they are simply more memorable.
As for sound files, you can get some idea from the samples at Open back unrounded vowel and Open back rounded vowel. There are some websites with sound files for different dialects of English, but unfortunately I can't find them right now. Perhaps another editor can help. Grover cleveland ( talk) 05:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that a lot of Americans seem to pronounce a few words with the short O. The list of words that use it is very small, so they don't use it often - and not all Americans use it. However, one of the words that is definitely on the list is "what". Some pronounce it with a short "ah", some with a very short "uh", but quite a lot of people pronounce it with the English short "o" as in "hot". Has this been noticed, and if so, is it mentioned on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter? The word "want" doesn't seem to be on the list, though - many more people pronounce that word with the "ah" sound. 90.209.112.76 ( talk) 20:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. In American schools we use the term "short O" to refer specifically to the sound in "hot", "cot", "cloth"; I had not heard the term "short O" used for a sound that does not exist in most American dialects. Do you know the IPA term for this sound that appears only in England and in a few Americans' "what"? From what you say I am guessing you mean /ɒː/ but I'm not sure. — Lawrence King ( talk) 17:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify. No American would pronounce what as /wɒt/. It was probably a [wʌ̞t].--
TheAmericanizator (
talk)
17:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
References
My dictionaries and everywhere else seem to claim that "calm" is supposed to rhyme with "bomb". As a basically GA speaker, this has always seemed strange to me, as "calm", "palm", etc. in my speech have the vowel of "caught", not the "cot" vowel; i.e. they sound as if written "caum", "paum", etc. I've been asking people recently how they pronounce these words, and what I actually hear most often is "callm" i.e. the /l/ gets sounded. (I'm not sure about the vowel quality before it. Many of my friends have the cot-caught merger so it wouldn't be relevant anyway.) Note that none of these speakers pronounces the l in "walk" or "talk". Is this an incipient (spelling-influenced) sound change? Anyone with evidence? Benwing ( talk) 01:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to contradict the chart on Great Vowel Shift in describing how vowels changed and when they changed. At first I tried to change the article to be more consistent with the other article, but then I noticed there were references to a published book text, and I couldn't fundamentally change the details without deleting this reference, and I can't check the reference because it seems to be academic shelfware. So here I mark the article as contradictory. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 23:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
In the section 16th century changes, it says "The diphthong /ɔʊ/ found in low and soul had become /oʊ/." and it also says "There were thus three low back monophthongs at this time: /ɔ/ as in dog, /ɔː/ as in low and (before /r/), in more and /ɒ/ in corn." In other words, it says that the word low was pronounced as /loʊ/ and it also says it was pronounced /lɔː/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rectipaedia ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Lot and cloth have the same vowel in at least some dialects of American English. The section lists several identical vowels [such as lot and cloth] as if they are supposed to contrast, and several contrasting vowels [such as bother vs. bongo] as if they are supposed to be identical. Either the split hasn't affected all dialects of AmE, or it has been followed by a lot-cloth merger in at least some dialects of AmE. Either way the section should mention this. 96.231.17.131 ( talk) 16:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I found something interesting, a statistical study from 2013 where one of the questions is if you pronounce "caught" and "cot" the same way. It has 3 maps which illustrate the results. I have no idea if its license allows it to be used, etc, but if someone is not as lazy as me, maybe they can research it and if possible incorporate it into the article. Here is the link. 77.70.30.216 ( talk) 16:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC) P.S. It's question number 28 in the drop-down menu on the left. 77.70.30.216 ( talk) 16:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Does cot-caught merger affect the syllabification of words? For example, without the merger, the syllabification of daughter is /ˈdɔ.tɚ/ and that of potter is /ˈpɑt.ɚ/ in American English, as the accented “short” vowel /ɑ/ must be followed by a consonant. How does a person with the merger, who pronounces daughter as /ˈdɑ.tɚ/, syllabify potter? /ˈpɑt.ɚ/ (like paut-er) or /ˈpɑ.tɚ/ (like pau-ter)? — TAKASUGI Shinji ( talk) 04:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I won't unilaterally change this, but it has to be noted that the Deterding and Hvitfeldt paper cited for the merger of cot and caught in Singaporean English does not indicate what vowel the words have merged to. The way the article is written implies that both vowels are merged to /ɑ/, which is what it is in the American English merger. But the Deterding and Hvitfeldt paper also shows that the two vowels under consideration in Singapore English are /ɔ/ (caught) and /ɒ/ (cot). Whatever the merged vowel is, it is definitely not /ɑ/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelicularities ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Pelicularities ( talk) 17:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Do people actually go into cities and study or do they just assume that all surrounding states speak the same??? Cot (ky-t/kah-t) does not rhyme with caught (caw-ght or court depending on area) in Baltimore so I don't know why we are linked in with that... Chic3z ( talk) 16:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is called "Phonological history of English low back vowels", but it ends up focusing almost entirely on developments in American English. It needs a lot more sections on developments in other accent areas.
Doesn't the cot-caught merger have its own page? In which case a whole load of detail could be offloaded into that and sections could be added on non-American low back vowels without making the article too long. 82.14.34.119 ( talk) 11:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The two pronunciations under "merged" are not the same. If they are supposed to be showing someone speaking with the merger, shouldn't they sound identical? Now I'm not sure I understand what a merger is. The files under "not merged" sound completely different than each other to be sure, whereas the "merged" files sound more similar, but there is definitely a difference in the "merged" files. Can someone please explain? These are great though, I wish they could be added to all the mergers as examples. But I need a little more explanation because if I can hear the difference in the pronunciation of the "merged" clips it hurts the credibility (for me) of the rest of the article. Is this some kind of partial merging going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.97.99 ( talk) 21:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Under "16th century changes", it reads "The diphthong /aʊ/ found in words such as cause, law, all, salt, psalm, half, change, chamber, dance had become an open back monophthong /ɒː/." However, on a different Wikipedia page, Phonological History of English, it says that /aʊ/ was monophthongized to /ɔː/. So, I am left confused. What actually happened? Any insight is appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.218.18 ( talk) 22:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I have made the adjustments myself to be consistent with the other Wikipedia page. From my experience, this inconsistency developed from one source: Barber. So, it is probably wisest not to use that source. Pages from the same site should be consistent with each other so that readers are not terribly confused (like how I was). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.218.18 ( talk) 21:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I am a little confused. In addition to describing the lot-cloth split, the article says that "Similar changes took place in words with <a>." This is where I am confused. To start:
However:
The article does say that, although the lot-cloth split was originally in RP, "today words of this group almost always have short /ɒ/ in RP." Therefore, the previous split in British English could be considered a weak split.
So, as the two splits are not found in the same accent, are the two splits really related to each other, or did they occur independently of each other? I would appreciate if somebody could help me out. Thank you. 74.102.216.186 ( talk) 00:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Forget it. The two are possibly said to be related because they occur in similar environment. For example, the lengthening of the short /ɒ/ and short /æ/ both occur before /θ/. Over and out. 74.102.216.186 ( talk) 23:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the article reads that the cot-caught merger has taken place in
I feel that the line is too vague, and it should be clarified. I was able to access the listed source. However, the problem is that the information is given in the form of a map.
Although I feel the sentence should be removed from the article, this is only my opinion. And I want to hear somebody else's opinion first. Thank you. LakeKayak ( talk) 15:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I have a question about the location of the following line:
Although the line currently is under the section Cot-caught merger, should this be under the section Lot-cloth split instead? I wish to hear someone's opinion before I make the change. Thank you. LakeKayak ( talk) 17:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have heard nobody's opinion for or against. And I have learned from experience that, when people have opinions, they tend to voice them. So, I am going to make that change. However, if anybody reverts the edit, then I'll let it be. Thank you. LakeKayak ( talk) 19:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Now we have a separate page for the cot-caught merger, we should reduce the current section on this page to a short summary. Assuming there are no longer any objections to having the separate article (I think it makes sense). W. P. Uzer ( talk) 20:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the article says as follows:
The word "profit" in particular caught my eye. It may have to do with an open-syllable versus a closed-syllable. The word "profit" in particular is usually pronounced /prɑ.fɪt/. Therefore, the triggered vowel is in an open syllable. On the other hand, "Boston" is pronounced as /bɔːs.tən/. So, the triggered vowel is in a closed syllable. There are still irregularities like "roster," "offer," and "impostor." However, that could clear up some of the inconsistencies. LakeKayak ( talk) 21:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, I guess that is another irregularity this split has. For example, In the /-f/ section, it said it had no exception; which, of course is not true. Otherwise words like ophthalmology and its derivatives would all have the /ɔ/ sound, but they don't, they all have /ɑ/. Found in speakers who still retain the /-f-/ pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.84.20.126 ( talk) 18:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I really feel this line is redundant. A previous line says similarly:
Therefore, the former should be removed in the article. If anybody objects, then they should speak now. Thank you. LakeKayak ( talk) 03:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I think I am going to remove the line, anyway. It really seems like we are dumbing down the page, here. This is not how I feel a Wikipedia page should be written. Thank you. LakeKayak ( talk) 03:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@ LakeKayak, could you explain your revert of my changing /aʊ/, /ɔʊ/, /oʊ/ to /au/, /ɔu/, /ou/? I think there is no warrant for using the rather specific symbol ⟨ʊ⟩ here, as the offglide of the diphthongs is a non-specific high back rounded vowel. But I don't know what the sources use, as none are cited (or whether their reasoning is good or bad). — Eru· tuon 02:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@ LakeKayak: How would you like that section to be expanded? Apart from a table of homophones, I'm not sure how much more we can write about it. The merger is highly unusual and most speakers don't have it. Mr KEBAB ( talk) 22:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
What exactly does the "Table" on this page show us without any reference to time or location? Can we add a time-frame to it (particular spans of years/centuries, for example)? It seems to be pulled straight from Wells, but without any context or even page number given. Wolfdog ( talk) 21:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
LakeKayak: I'm intrigued, regarding the fact that "In many dialects of English, the vowel /oʊ/ has undergone fronting", you've written an accompanying comment as follows: "Note to editors, this seems to be worth-noting on "a" Wikipedia page. However, which one remains in question. Therefore, if you don't think this is the appropriate page for this material, we can discuss this one on the talk page". I think this is a great topic to discuss, since /oʊ/ (GOAT) fronting, and in fact the quality of the /oʊ/ vowel overall, appears to be one of the major differentiating features of varieties of English, much like the cot-caught merger. General American, RP, and Australian/NZ /oʊ/ vowels are quite clearly distinguished even among everyday speakers of English and even in popular imitations of these accents. I also think a "History" of these divergent developments in the /oʊ/ vowel (such changes in the vowel being relatively recent, mostly just in the last century or so) would have a lot of research and information to present. Wolfdog ( talk) 14:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this is an acceptable place for this information as it's preferable to categorise stuff according to the present than the past and will remove the inline comment if no one disagrees. I added a see also link to English-language vowel changes before historic /l/#Goat split which discusses a new phoneme that arose in some of these Southern dialects (mine included) as a result of the vowel holding out against fronting before /l/s in codas. For the record, this ref which I just added to the THOUGHT-GOAT merger section also talks about fronting of the monophthongal Northern GOAT vowel [oː] to [ɵː] throughout the North East so it might be worth mentioning that too. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 19:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Any chance of providing soundfiles of what these are talking about? It's going completely over my head. 50.194.115.156 ( talk) 13:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Dankpods ( talk) 20:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Queen Elizabeth has died, so her inclusion in the section on the LOT-CLOTH split is now moot; if someone adds it back I won't change it, but would it not be sensical to use the her as an example of how the LOT-CLOTH split "still exists" in older RP speakers. LinguaNerd ( talk) 23:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)