LL-L "Phonology" 2005.06.05 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 05.JUN.2005 (06) * 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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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: Ed Alexander <edsells at cogeco.ca>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.06.05 (02) [E]

At 01:02 PM 06/05/05 -0700, some people wrote:

>> > I have often wondered why US English speakers parrot this
>> > Canadian shibboleth as if it is [y] or [u:]. Whenever I
>> > hear actual Canadians pronouncing this it sounds very
>> > much more like [o:]. Hence Canadian "about" is to me
>> > identical to "a boat" but nowhere near "a boot" as
>> > Americans would have us believe.
>> >
>> > Why do Americans hear [u:] and myself - whose native
>> > sound range is Nottingham English / Cornish English -
>> > [o:] for this disputed phoneme? I have raised this with
>> > my Australian-accented wife and my Irish-accented friends
>> > and they all hear [o:], not [u:]. So what's happening?
>>
>>I don't know, honestly. Power of suggestion, perhaps? My own pronunciation
>>is [o:], though I do sometimes hear myself say it like [EU] or possibly
>>[@U].
>>
>>On the other hand, I find it quite hilarious when Canadian characters in
>>South Park say 'aboot'.
>>
>>"Could you tell us again what this is all... abOUt?"
>>"It's aboot freedom of speech! It's aboot censorship! It's aboot... what
>>are
>>you all laughing aboot?"
>>
>>Isaac M. Davis
>
>Well actually I used to live in British Columbia, Canada and we pronounced
>it about like abowt.  Was I really in for a shock when we moved to the
>Prairies.  Everyone, it seemed, talked through their noses.  Maybe the
>aboot
>sound is because quite a number of people in Eastern Canada were of
>Scottish
>origins.

Here we go again.  Actually, Canadian English migrated to Canada from the
Mid Atlantic area after the American Revolution, with it still shares many
characteristics with this dialect.  E.g. "grage" for "garage".  I always
find it interesting when non-speakers try to find "other" vowels to spell
these word with (house, about, south, etc.), when really, the Mid
Atlantic/Canadian pronunciation already represents the best and most
original pronunciation of the dipthong "ou".  Since others pronounce this
differently, they make the assumption that their pronunciation, such as
"ow", represents the sound "ou" and they must somehow find new letters for
those poor funny sounding Canadians and people in South Jersey.

Ed Alexander, Hamilton, Can-da, eh?

----------

From: Ian Pollock <ispollock at shaw.ca>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.06.05 (02) [E]

The usual pronunciation for Canadian raising is wedge + jod [Vj] or
wedge + [w] - [Vw]. Canadian raising happens to two basic diphthongs (
[aj] and [aw] ) before unvoiced consonants , hence:
[lawd] "loud" but
[lVwt] "lout".
About is generally not [o:] but [abVwt].
Another interesting phenomenon associated with Canadian raising is that
it provides a few minimal pairs American english doesn't have, but in a
very indirect way. For example:
sighting vs siding
There is no difference between the pronunciation of these two words in
your basic American dialect, because intervocalic [t] and [d] have been
replaced by a short trilled r, the phonetic symbol of which I forget.
In IPA it looks like an r, but without the little hook coming out the
top left side. I'll use capital R for it here.
American: [sajRIN] sighting and [sajRIN] siding
But Canadian raising makes a difference between these two words, not
based on changing the t/d/r thing, but by raising the vowel before the
*formerly* voiceless [t] (now R). So that:
Canadian: [sVjRIN] sighting vs. [sajRIN] siding.
I imagine this is because Canadian raising happened before the d/t/R
change.
I have never heard any difference between BC and Alberta dialects that
has to do with nasality. The only difference I know of is that Alberta
has a non-standard pronunciation of wedge word finally in positions
where the rest of the Canadian dialects have schwa, for example:
Alberta: [kAnVRV] "Canada"
vs.
General Canadian: [kAnVR@]

==============================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.
=======================================================================