Language desk
< July 16	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 17

I've heard loads of Brits pronounce "Kentucky" with "took" rather than with "tuck".

I wonder, if that way of pronouncing the American state's name, is just a typical British mistake, or a British tradition of pronouncing "Kentucky". Umzu (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouncing a short "u" like the "oo" of "look" or "book" is not so unusual. "In Penny Lane, the barber shaves another coostomer…" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally associated with Northern English, so yes Lancashire, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, County Durham, etc. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain I heard Phil Liggett say a short-u word that way recently, and he seems to be from that same general area. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I wouldn't trust Phil, if I were you, since although he's from Bebington, he may have been contaminated with corks round his hat by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Umzu: See foot-strut split, which Northern English accents lack. It's worth noting that this pronunciation is considered to be strongly regional and non-standard, like the cockney pronunciation of face as fice [faɪs]. The standard British pronunciation of the stressed vowel in Kentucky is /ʌ/ (phonetically [ɐ] or [ʌ]), as elsewhere in the English-speaking world. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I speak both Northern English and something approaching RP, so I would say /kɛnˈtʌki/ to southerners, but maybe /kɛnˈtʊki/ to locals. The local pronunciation of book and look is, however, the much longer /uː/, though this pronunciation is dying out. I would never say /kɛnˈtuːki/ to anyone. Dbfirs 19:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbfirs: It's actually interesting that you won't find pretty much anyone (maybe apart from a tiny minority of speakers) from Scotland that would say /kɛnˈtʊki/ (or /kɛnˈtuki/, as they don't differentiate between /ʊ/ and /u/). There's actually a rather big gap on the map between Scotland and Welsh/Southern English dialects that do differentiate between /ʊ/ (or, in Scotland, /u/) and /ʌ/, with the Northern English dialects being that very gap. The lack of the trap-bath split is, as of 2019, probably universally accepted in the UK as being standard (with pronunciations like /bɑːθ/ being increasingly seen as southern regionalisms), but the lack of the foot-strut split is not. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the trap-bath split is the simplest way to identify a southerner here in the north of England. We use /ʊ/ rather than /u/, though they are very similar, but /uː/ is quite different and often pronounced something like [əuː]. Dbfirs 22:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, the split bath trap is the simplest way to identify a southerner here in the north of England." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Incredible! Don't Northern English speakers make a phonemic (hence phonetic) distinction, between (the vowels of) "took" and "tuck"? Umzu (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well "took" can be /tuːk/, but this distinction is dying out, so many northerners pronounce both as /tʊk/. I would make a distinction if I were speaking to a southerner with my attempt at RP. We do make distinctions between the vowels of words such as "law" and "lore" that southerners do not make. Dbfirs 22:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that "lore" ends with a rhotic r, or with a schwa after the /o:/ ? Umzu (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean the vowel itself. Lore is [lɔː] as in RP (or perhaps a fraction more open) but law is [lo̞ː]. I do sometimes colour the ɔː of lore, or even pronounce the r for emphasis, as in Scottish, but this is not what I meant. The same applies to similar words such as awe and ore. The local dialect version of "oh" also uses [o̞ː], but this is seldom heard these days. The vowels are still shifting here. Dbfirs 11:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I've never been aware of this Northern British back vowel - as an additional phoneme! In my American accent, the only difference between lore and law is reflected by whether the identical vowel is coloured by a rhotic r. Additionally, I do have five different phonemes of back vowels: cooed, could, cawed, cod, cud (not to mention phonemes of front vowels). Do Northern British English speakers make a distinction between all those five words? Umzu (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Umzu: Speakers of Northern England English differentiate between cooed, could, cawed and cod, with cud being the same as could. Speakers of Scottish English distinguish cooed, cawed and cud, with could being the same as cooed (still different from cud) and cod being the same as cawed. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, Northern England English speakers pronounce "a good luck " like "a good look "? I must admit that's quite interesting... How don't they get confused? Umzu (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Umzu: Either that or they pronounce "luck" as your "look" and "look" as your "Luke". AFAIK English /ʊ/ and /ʌ/ are largely in complementary distribution as they come from the same Middle English phoneme /u/. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since they distinguish "could" and "cooed" (per your testimony), so they probably (I guess) distinguish "look" and "Luke", don't they? Umzu (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the dialect. In Lancashire, traditionally, "look" and "Luke" are the same, pronounced with an /u:/, as in the standard pronunciation of "Luke"; but in Yorkshire "look" and "luck" are pronounced with the same vowel (the short, back vowel in "look" in Southern accents) and "Luke" is different with the long /u:/. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up: Northern England English speakers (like RP speakers and General American speakers) have five back vowels as phonemes: 1. "cooed", 2. "cawed", 3. "cod ", and 4. "cud " - pronounced /kʊd/ by Northern England English speakers (rather than /kʌd/ as pronounced by RP speakers and General American speakers), with "could " - being the same as "cooed " in Lancashire - and being the same as "cud " in Yorkshire. Additionally, they have a 5-th back vowel as a phoneme, reflected by the distinction between "law " and "lore ". However, This fifth phoneme is not recognized in RP, nor in General American, which have the back vowel of "could " as a 5-th phoneme. I think that's a good summary of the whole issue about "a fifth back vowel as a phoneme"... Umzu (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Umzu: That's mostly correct, except for the fact that I think that most (or at least many) words with RP/GA ~~/ʌ/~~ /ʊ/ take /ʊ/ in all Northern English accents, regardless of region ("could" /kʊd/ is probably one of them). The pronunciation of look etc. with /uː/ is regionally variable, confined to a limited set of words and may be recessive (so that speakers increasingly say /lʊk/). I don't know where you can find a list of words that can take /uː/ in (some) Northern English that have /ʊ/ in RP and GA, but you can compare the corresponding close back vowel in German. For instance, book (/bʊk/ in RP and GA, /buːk/ in some Northern English) is translated as Buch in German and has a long vowel: /buːx/, as does Swedish bok /buːk/. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you had wanted to write "except for the fact that I think that most (or at least many) words with RP/GA ~~/ʌ/~~ [/ʊ/] take /ʊ/ [also] in all Northern English accents, regardless of region (could /kʊd/ is probably one of them) ".

Otherwise, I can't understand your reservations about what I've written. You write: "except for the fact that I think that most (or at least many) words with RP/GA /ʌ/ take /ʊ/ in all Northern English accents, regardless of region (could /kʊd/ is probably one of them) ". Please notice that I have nowhere written that words with RP/GA /ʌ/ does not take /ʊ/ in some northern regions. Further, your example of "could" cannot be an example of a word with RP/GA /ʌ/. I have only written that "could " is pronounced the same as "cooed " in Lancashire - and the same as "cud " (i.e. /kʊd/) in Yorkshire. Umzu (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Umzu: Fixed, I did mean /ʊ/. Thanks. I still don't think "could" has a long vowel in any type of Northern English though. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My question: isn't it basically the case that words that have /ʊ/ in RP/GA which take /uː/ in some Nothern English are those spelled with "oo"? Wells seems to term this later shortening (from /uː/ to /ʊ/), as opposed to early shortening of /uː/ to /u/ (apparently in Middle English, judging by transcription), which has ultimately resulted in /ʌ/ in RP and GA. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to User:filelakeshoe's comment, "could " has /ʊ/ in RP/GA, and takes /uː/ in some Nothern English accent (e.g. in ~~Yorkshire~~ Lancashire), but still is not spelled with "oo". Umzu (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah thats not what I meant. I am pretty sure "could" has /ʊ/ everywhere, as Mr K says, but in Lancashire (not Yorkshire) some other words have /u:/ where other accents have /ʊ/, e.g. took, book, cook, look. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It's my mistake. I thought that "could" (pronounced /kʊd/ in RP and GA) is treated as "look" (pronounced /lʊk/ in RP and GA). Umzu (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the feverish Shrowsbury/Shroosbury debate largely ignored in our article on Shrewsbury, but nicely written up here --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with IPA and nobody's used the helpful device which explains the pronunciation when you mouseover, but a lot depends on whether or not "law" or "lore" is followed by a word beginning with a vowel. It's not clear to me whether that also affects the pronunciation of the vowel Dbfirs is discussing. 2A02:C7F:A05:DC00:90EB:8D18:146:2B9C (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, a following consonant or vowel does not affect the pronunciation. Awe has the vowel of thought (/θɒt/) whereas lore has the vowel of core. Dbfirs 13:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbfirs: What? Are you claiming that thought has the vowel of cot? Rather than the vowel of cought? Unless the variety of English you're talking about has the cought-cot merger, which I believe is not the case... Umzu (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Umzu: I don't think so. The two can contrast entirely by length in Northern England English and Welsh English: /kɒt/ vs. /kɒːt/ (much like modern RP "shed" /ʃɛd/ vs. "shared" /ʃɛːd/), but I don't think anyone merges them (further north, in Scotland, they usually do). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no merger. That's What I said I thought. But I'm still asking, whether User:Dbfirs actually claims, that thought has the vowel of cot (rather than the vowel of caught), in the variety of English they're talking about. Umzu (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been to Shropshire and I have never heard the name of its county town pronounced as anything other than "Shrowsbury". Until today, I was unaware that there was any other pronunciation. 2A02:C7F:A05:DC00:90EB:8D18:146:2B9C (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the beauty of the Ref Desks! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I used to work with a Shrewsbrarian (or maybe Shrewsburyite?) who said "Shroosbury" and claimed that only posh people in the town used "Shrowsbury"; but I'm sticking with the latter which I learned at school. Worth a visit by the way, everything is half-timbered, even the buses. Alansplodge (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, I think the demonym might be Salopian, at least if you went to Shrewsbury School (now that is posh). Alansplodge (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

/lu:k/ and /bu:k/ are not "Northern", they are North-Western! (Traditionally, Lancashire, but I'm not sure which of the traditional or current neighbouring counties they spread into). In Yorkshire, "book" and "buck" are both /bʊk/. --ColinFine (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sixty years ago, /lu:k/, /bu:k/, /hu:k/, cru:k/ and /nu:k/ would have been the usual pronunciation in this corner of what was then Yorkshire (but is now Cumbria). I think the RP pronunciation is taking over in all of the North West. One seldom hears the old vowel in these words used by younger people, but it is, of course, retained in words such as spook. Dbfirs 13:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]