Talk:Open-mid back rounded vowel

[Is the sound correct?]

i'm no expert but i don't think rp applies this vowel sound to the word "ball". it's more like a closed o for ball

I'm an RP speaker and I can vouch for the description being correct. 213.249.135.36 17:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Korean example please

From what I know of Korean, the vowel 어 is a perfect example of the ɔ vowel. Could someone of greater authority corroborate my statement by adding an example to the table of occurrences? MJ 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the vowel chart at Korean language, neither short, nor long /o/ is open-mid. I did add examples that you can check out at Close-mid back rounded vowel per your request. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I was afraid that would be the result. My experience is admittedly limited, but it is with native speakers teaching me the sounds and spelling. Especially noting the last point in the current ʌ article, about how /ʌ/ in RP has shifted forward to [ɐ], in my opinion the consistent use of /ʌ/ at Korean_language is quite inaccurate. The 어 I have always heard does not match [ʌ] as in ‘but’; it is [ɔ] as in ‘bought’, exactly like the inherent vowel in Bengali, also taught to me by native speakers. This discussion probably belongs at Talk:Korean_language but I wanted to get some informed opinion here first. Perhaps there is academic precedent of transliterating 어 as /ʌ/ in direct IPA transcription of Korean, but I suspect it is the result of intermediation in English, e.g. 선 is most often transliterated “sun” (easier to typeset than “sŏn” and close enough for most English speakers) but really pronounced [sʰɔn̪]). MJ 18:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a native speaker of RP and Seoul Korean, and I can tell you for certain that 어 is not rounded. --Kjoonlee 18:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am an amateur in both Korean and linguistics, but I agree that sometimes/often 어 sounds to me like [ɔ]. However several reference books — including Sohn (1999) — claim that 어 is pronounced as schwa! At least this seems more plausible to me than /ʌ/ too. On the other hand, the Korean phonology article shows the long form of the phoneme, /ʌː/, being realised phonetically as [ɘː]! But this area is one with a serious deficiency of clear & credible information that is readily accessible to the public. For example, many Korean speakers today do not distinguish between long and short vowels. And the romanisations more often hinder than help....

By the way: according to Sohn (1999, pp. 45f.), several linguists (W.J. Kim, 1971; K.M. Lee, 1976) postulate the occurrence of a "Great Vowel Shift" in Korean, from "mid ɔ" in early Middle Korean to "low ɔ" in late Middle Korean (on the spectrum high–mid–low), while a new phoneme ("mid o") also emerges. If that is possible, then is something missing from this article? Sohn claims to be using the IPA.

—DIV (1.144.105.189 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC))

RP pronunciation of 'bore'

I am quite sure that RP does not pronounce 'bore' with the same vowel as Australian English 'hot'. I am quite sure the two are quite close. 'Bore' rhymes with 'core' and 'floor' and 'caught'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.22.44.144 (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right. They're very much different. It appears that IPA ɔ ("aw") has been confused with IPA o ("oh") for Australian English. "Hot" certainly does not rhyme with "caught" here.
Incidentally, Mandarin "我/wǒ" sounds a lot like Australian English "war". This really needs to be addressed, and has confused me no end as too which O is which.
— Cashie (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The 'explanation' adds confusion. Maybe long IPA ɔ can be used to render a North American pronunciation of "aw" (as in "thought", indicated in the WP table), but "aw" has no relation to either long or short IPA ɔ in Australian English. Instead long IPA o sounds like a fair representation of "aw" in typical Australian English (as in "yawn", indicated in the WP article).

But I agree that confusion is widespread on such matters. —DIV (1.144.105.189 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC))

August, log, etc.

Is this the vowel sound that most speakers of General American (or something similar) use in log, nog, August, dog, frog, soggy, etc.? If so, then I think these would be better examples than "ball". The dark l occuring after the sound in that word makes the sound itself kind of unclear in my opinion. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely true. The dark L is known for screwing up the sound of the preceding vowel; indeed, sometimes /ɛl/ becomes [æɫ], /æl/ becomes [aɫ], /ɑl/ becomes [ɒɫ], /aɪl/ becomes [aɪəɫ], etc.; more extreme examples are to be found in regional accents. I have /ɔ/ in all of the words you mentioned except nog. Speakers of English English have /ɔ/ in August only, as the spelling suggests. Jack^(Lumber) 15:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. So I'm assuming that speakers of English English have [ɒ] in the other words I listed besides August. I've noticed that as a general rule, if a particular word has the letter o in it, and if I, as a speaker of something close to General American, pronounce that o as [ɑ] or [ɔ], then speakers of English English will pronounce that same o as [ɒ]. I don't know if this is always true, but it seems to be. I think I have [ɔ] in every single one of the words I mentioned. I also think I have it in prom. Though I'm not sure because I'm am confused on what [ɔ] is supposed to sound like. Some Wikipedia articles I have read make it seem as if [ɔ] never occurs in dialects with the cot-caught merger. I have a cot-caught merger. I don't think this is true. What they are forgetting is that even those dialects maintain [ɔ] in words like the ones I mentioned. So what if it is only in a few words; we still have that sound. I have observed that some young people in the South pronounce dog differently from the way I pronounce it. This confuses me because I know I'm not from the region of the country that has any features of the NCVS, and I also know that Southerners know how to pronounce [ɔ] seeing as how they have that sound in many words, so I don't see how we could possibly pronounce dog differently from one another. I think the difference is in vowel length. I think many Southerners pronounce it as [dɔːg], while I pronounce it as [dɔg]. This is strange, because I didn't think vowel length mattered so much in American English. Anyway, that's about enough rambling for me. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So I guess it's my turn now:) As usual, we have to distinguish between /phonology/ and [phonetics].

For U.S. speakers without the cot-caught merger:

RP /ɒ/ usually maps to either USEng /ɑ/ or USEng /ɔ/; in fact, RP /ɒ/ usually corresponds to USEng /ɑ/ except:

• when orthographic o is followed by /f/ (e.g. off), /s/ (cross), /θ/ (cloth) (the voiceless fricatives), and /ŋ/ (long);
• for many speakers, when orthographic o is followed by /g/; some speakers may have /ɑ/ in bog but not in dog /dɔg/;
• usually, in the word gone;
• often, in the word chocolate;
• away from the North and New York City, in the word on.

Many USEng speakers have /ɔ/ in want; some have it in watch as well.

This intricate pattern is the result of the lot-cloth split, a variant of which also occurred in England a long time ago. However, contemporary RP doesn't have this split; I can't think of a single orthographic o that is pronounced /ɔː/ in RP.

In some cases, the reverse correspondence is found; for example, daughter and water may or may not rhyme in USEng, whereas they always rhyme in England, where they have /ɔː/.

(And then, of course, there are further complications; for instance, wrath rhymes with cloth in England...)

If you have the cot-caught merger, you lack the phoneme /ɔ/. This doesn't mean you lack the phone [ɔ]. For cc-merged speakers, doll rhymes with mall, and hall rhymes with Taj Mahal. Some of these speakers pronounce these words with either [ɔ] or [ɒ]; the same speakers may realize, say, wash as [wɑʃ] and long as [ɫɒŋ]. In other words, the phoneme /ɑ/ (in the inventory of cc-merged speakers) is made up of several different allophones--this is especially noticeable in Canadian English, as we saw some time ago.

Sometimes, a phoneme may have allophones that are fairly "distant" from one another. In California, for example, /æ/ may be [ɪə] in man but [a] in, well, California.

Now, if you have [ɔ] in dog, August, log, as well as (egg)nog, but [ɑ] in, say, hot and block, this means that you don't allow the sound [ɑ] to be followed by [g]--and you can still be cc-merged. But if you have different vowels in flog and log, or hall and Taj Mahal, then those vowels contrast in identical environments, and therefore constitute different phonemes--in other word, the cc-merger is not complete for you.

Historically, /ɔ/ is a "long" vowel; in RP, it is somewhat longer, higher, and more rounded than it is in General American. In NYC, it may even be diphthongal (long, walk, coffee...) Granted, a short vowel does not necessarily have duration as its chief distinguishing feature (Merriam-Webster); however, even if we transcribe the kit vowel as /ɪ/ and the face vowel as /e/, we cannot ignore that the latter is noticeably longer. Jack^(Lumber) 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is much more complicated than I thought. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I had always learned, perhaps incorrectly, that /ɔ/ is the short o in New York speech and that it's also used in certain words in Midwestern speech (e.g., caught). I always use /ɒ/, but I'm not from New York. Bostoner (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Polish vowel

I'm a little confused as to why /ɔ/ is used to transcribe the Polish mid back vowel. The reference provided in the text is to Jassem (2003), but he actually uses /o/ rather than /ɔ/. This is made even more confusing by the fact that the Polish vowel this is intended to transcribe is quite different from the vowel many American dialects of English have in awe, which is customarily transcribed /ɔ/. Can anyone set me straight? Whatever the answer to this is, perhaps it should be made explicit somewhere in the text, here and in related articles on Polish, and the reference to Jassem corrected so as not to misrepresent what he actually does. Alternatively, perhaps it might be worth considering using /o/? MJM74 (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's rather confusing why Jassem (2003) uses <e> and <o> for vowels that are clearly closer to the cardinal space for open-mid vowels (check out the vowel chart at Polish phonology). My only thought is that ease of transcription was a significant factor. As I mentioned here last year, Jassem also does this with the palatalized velars as well. Received Pronunciation indeed has a mid or close-mid pronunciation of the vowel in bore (so maybe we should take it out) but I believe that the phonemic transcription of <ɔː> is a traditional one and that other English dialects retain more open articulations. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I learnt a little Polish once and it seemed to me that the 'o' in Polish was halfway between Vietnamese 'o' and Vietnamese 'ô'. What these are in IPA I am not sure - it seems to me that regarding 'o' at least, IPA, at least as far as I can see on Wikipedia, is rather confused. ¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.22.44.144 (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

All of the sources I have access to say that Polish /ɛ, ɔ/ (including Jassem (2003)) are phonetically, more or less, open-mid. Peter238 (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

English

The diagraph <ull> is pronounced /ɔ/ GamerGeekWiki (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that (and this article is about a phone, not a phoneme). Examples? I think people with l-vocalization pronounce words such as cull as [kɔʊ]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The preview audio is wrong.

Hello, I have noticed that the preview audio for this sound is completely wrong. That's not an open O, instead, it is actually a closed O, and it's not the same as American English "off", Catalan "soc" or French "sort".

Just compare:

• American English "OFF": https://fr.forvo.com/word/off/#en (JessicaMS's Audio)
• Catalan "SOC": https://fr.forvo.com/word/soc/#ca
• French "SORT": https://fr.forvo.com/word/sort/#fr

And now, after listening to those pronunciations of the Open O, check the preview audio that is given in the page:

• The supposed "open O": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Open-mid_back_rounded_vowel.ogg

That's clearly not an open O like the pronunciations of above. His mouth is very closed. The preview audio should be modified, so people don't get confused. --Glevion (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Glevion: Done. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2: Thanks! But I'm still hearing the old preview audio, I don't know why. I saw that you changed it, but the preview audio in the page is still the same. Maybe it takes time for the change? 🤨. --Glevion (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Glevion: You're supposed to hear this recording. Try clearing your cache or restarting the computer if that doesn't help. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I am a French linguist from Sorbonne university who arrived at this page for exactly the same reason: the audio is completely off. It is quite evidently recorded by someone whose language does not have this specific vowel. The recording sounds nothing like the representes vowel to anyone who speaks one of the languages in which it is one of the most common sounds - that being the case of French, Portuguese, Italian, Galician... I could provide a corrected audio of it over the next days. 92.184.96.204 (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: include both long and short forms in the audio

If you experienced linguists are looking into improving the audio, may I make a suggestion?
I propose that vowels be presented on the audio in both long and short form.
I appreciate that there are other length distinctions possible (e.g. extra-short, half-long), and furthermore other entirely different types of distinction (e.g. tone), and in some languages these distinctions correspond to different phonemes, while in other languages they are treated as equivalent realisations of a single phoneme. But even so I think it is worth including both long and short forms of the vowels to indicate that there is not just one possible realisation.
I am not sure whether it would be better to have both sounds in one audio file, or to make separate audio files.
—DIV (1.144.105.189 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC))

Thanks for the suggestion. I agree with everything. Done. Dan Palraz (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Please note all the above comments were made before the sample was replaced by one by RoachPeter (see Help talk:IPA#Vowel samples revisited). Nardog (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Does the preview audio match "not" and "voll" recordings?

I'm from the north of England and speak English and German. If I listen to the audio sample at the top of the page, I hear a familiar sound that I say for the word "or". Later on the page there are recordings for "not" (English) and "voll" (German), which both sound like I would say them -- but to me the vowel in those recordings sounds noticeably different from the audio sample. Clearly, there are probably versions of both languages that have the "or" sound in those locations, but I don't think the recordings of the words match the audio sample at the top. Can someone help? (In case it's relevant, I don't have the cot-caught merger.) Thanks. M R 9876543210 (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)