ah/ awe

[Tom Zurinskas]

>From: "Gordon, Matthew J." <GordonMJ at MISSOURI.EDU>
>>
>Suggesting that people with this vowel merger "are flat out refusing to =
>say the phoneme 'awe'" makes about as much sense as claiming that these =
>same people are refusing to say the fricative phoneme corresponding to =
>the <gh> in night, naughty, ought, etc. The truth is these sounds are =
>not part of the phonemic inventory of these speakers (or of the vast =
>majority of speakers in the latter case). Normally we don't get to =
>choose our phonemic inventories. So, it's just wrong to think that =
>merged speakers somehow have a choice of whether to deploy the 'awe' =
>phoneme and choose to reject it.=20
>

To my ears it's not a merger between "ah" and "awe" it's a substitution of
"ah" for "awe" and a dropping of the "awe" phoneme altogether.

What does it mean to say the sound "awe" is not in their inventory?  Is this
something like "r" dropping in UK.  Certainly they can say the "r" if they
want.  They just don't want to.  Most likely because it's not in vogue in
their geographic area dialect.  But certainly they hear it on TV and can say
"awe" if they want to.

My thinking is that "ah" is easier to say than "awe" so it's substituted for
"awe".  I hear folks that never have made that substitution before, making
it now.  It's on TV, It's everywhere.  I wonder if it's a Spanish influence.

On a philosophic note I'd rather pronounce the "k" in "knot" and "p" in
"pneumonia" to keep pronunciaiton closer to spelling.  This is a reading
problem.  Not good to go the other way, such as  changing the pronunciation
from "awe" to "ah" and creating heteronyms and possible understanding
problems and phonics confusions.

Tom Z

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org