Re: Spelling pronunciations (was: rhotic miscellany)

Muke Tever scripsit:

> I suppose this would be moot if the dialects in question still retained the
> original /A/-/O/ distinction.  (Speaking of which, for those that do retain
> it, does "wash" have /A/ or /O/?  It's impossible to discover these things
> from the orthography--at least, if there are rules, I never learned them.)
"Wash" has /O/ in my dialect, but I realize that this is not determinative
about /wOrS/-dialects, because "Washington" is /wAS-/ in my dialect and
/wOrS-/ in dialects that have that.

W/r/t Canadian English or RP, which maintain all of the original distinctions,
my dialect has unrounded short /O/ but not long, so "pot" has /A/ but "law"
does not.  In the case we are discussing, where /w-/ precedes, it seems to
be entirely lexical which words have /wA/ and which have /wO/.  "Water" is
a particularly vexed case:  I think I natively have /wOtr=/, but these days
I find myself saying /wAtr=/ as often as not merely in order to be understood.

--
Only do what only you can do.               John Cowan <jcowan@...>
  --Edsger W. Dijkstra's advice             http://www.reutershealth.com
    to a student in search of a thesis      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

Reply