LL-L "Phonology" 2004.08.31 (07) [E]

Tue Aug 31 19:21:00 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 31.AUG.2004 (07) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Brooks, Mark <mark.brooks at twc.state.tx.us>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2004.08.31 (03) [E]

Ron wrote:
I take it that was intended as tongue-in-cheek, playful "flame-baiting."  Or
were you serious about "route"?
But, of course, it was a playful poke at the Northerners.  I think "route"
is probably a borrowing from French, likely after the Norman conquest of
England.  But, the strange thing (to me anyway) is that the /u/ of the word
"route" DIDN'T change to /au/ in the Great English Vowel Shift in a large
part of the language.  It DID change to /au/ for the ancestors of those of
us in the South, though.  Is there an explanation for that?
Mark Brooks

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Phonology

Mark:

> But, the strange thing (to me anyway) is that the /u/ of the word
> "route" DIDN'T change to /au/ in the Great English Vowel Shift in a large
> part of the language.

Note English "rout," though, from AF _rute_ > OF _route_.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Kevin Caldwell <kcaldwell31 at comcast.net>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2004.08.31 (03) [E]

> From: Brooks, Mark <mark.brooks at twc.state.tx.us>
> Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.08.30 (12) [E]
>
> And there is "route" the way they mispronounce it up north (in the US).
> We
> all know it's supposed to rhyme with "house", but there are some that
> insist
> on pronouncing it to rhyme with "boot".
>
> Mark Brooks

I guess I'm weird, but I alternate between the two pronunciations of
"route".  Generally speaking, I pronounce it "root" (rhymes with "boot", not
the western US pronunciation of "root" that rhymes with "foot") when it is
followed by a highway number.  Note that this is the way it is pronounced in
the song "Route 66".  In other cases, I pronounce it "rout" (rhymes with
"out"), but I always hesitate because I don't really think my brain has
settled on one or the other as "preferable".  A major factor in this is
probably the fact that, while I was born in Virginia to parents from
Tennessee and Kentucky, we moved around a lot, so by the time I was 15 I had
lived in Virginia, Arizona, Colorado, Tennessee, Oregon, and California,
then back to Tennessee where I finished high school and went to college.

Kevin Caldwell

----------

From: David Barrow <davidab at telefonica.net.pe>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2004.08.31 (03) [E]

>From: Ed Alexander <edsells at cogeco.ca>
>Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.08.30 (12) [E]
>
>At 04:29 PM 08/30/04 -0700, Kevin Caldwell wrote:
>
>>Canadian "about" always sounds to me more like "aboat" than "aboot".
>
>I've spent the last few years listening intently for this "Canadian"
>marker.  Kevin is right, it does sound "more" like "aboat" than
>"aboot".  However, what it mostly sounds like is "ou", pronounced as a pure
>diphthong, with both letters sounding something like short "o" and short
>"u".  The more typical "American" pronunciation is also a diphthong, but
>with the letters long "a" (as in father) and "w" (as in "double or long
>u").  However, there is a very wide difference between the way it sounds
>from speaker to speaker, though it is always closer to the shorter Canadian
>diphthong than it is to the longer American one.
>
>Ed Alexander, Hamilton, Ontaryo, eh?
>
>----------
>
>From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
>Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.08.30 (12) [E]
>
>Kevin Caldwell wrote:
>"Canadian "about" always sounds to me more like "aboat" than "aboot"."
>
>It does to me, too. Only United States scriptwriters hear _aboot_ when they
>need a cheap and easy national stereotype, but have managed to popularise
>the mis-hearing through sheer repitition.
>
>I think the same goes for the indescribable northern English /u/ which is
>habitually written /oo/ by people who should know better. I don't know how
>anyone could hear my pronunciation of _bugger_ or _push_ or _pull_ as
>"booger", "poosh" and "pool". If anything, they are _bogger_ and _posh_ and
>_poll_.
>
>Criostóir.
>
>----------
>
>From: ezinsser at icon.co.za <ezinsser at icon.co.za>
>Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.08.30 (12) [E]
>
>Hi all,
>
>Kevin writes:
>
>>Canadian "about" always sounds to me more like "aboat" than "aboot".
>
>I agree and the more central one goes, the more oat and aboat it becomes.
>
>It's like the Afrikaans vowels /a/ and /e/ and diphtongs ei/y.
>The flatter the tongue the more westerly we originate.
>
>Groete,
>Elsie Zinsser
>
The above is known as Canadian raising and it happens before voiceless
consonants. /aU/ becomes [VU]  /aI/ becomes [VI]

http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~lsp/Canadian/canphon3.html#diphthongs

In some accents of England the /@U/ of RP is [VU] hence the equation of
Canadian about with English about

David Barrow

----------

From: Dan Prohaska <danielprohaska at bluewin.ch>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology"

Críostóir Ó Ciardha a screfas:

>>I think the same goes for the indescribable northern English /u/ which is
>>habitually written /oo/ by people who should know better. I don't know how
>>anyone could hear my pronunciation of _bugger_ or _push_ or _pull_ as
>>"booger", "poosh" and "pool". If anything, they are _bogger_ and _posh_
>>and _poll_.

>>Criostóir.

Criostóir wheg,

I think those who transcribe [U] as <oo> want to avoid the ambivalence found
in traditional English spelling <u> which can stand for [V] in 'but', 'hut'
and [U] in 'put' and 'push'. In doing so they become ambivalent about [U]
and [u:] instead. So I take it's the 'short' <oo> in "good" that is
intended. And that is what I have in ['bUg@], [pUS] and [pUl]. I don't say
['bQg@], [p at S] and [pQl] as spelling it with <o> would indicate. Is an
'o'-pronunciation typical for Nottigham?

Yehes da re'th fo,
Dan

==============================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================