Yes, I don’t mean to say that the voicing contrast is not there. It’s there as well. I’m just saying that the additional feature you described is aspiration. People usually pronounce “pat” with a starting consonant that’s voiceless and aspirated and usually pronounce “bat” with a starting consonant that’s voiced and unaspirated.
But, and this is the interesting thing, even though the distinction between /p/ and /b/ is nominally primarily the voicing contrast, if you were to hear someone pronounce “pat” with an unaspirated /p/ at the beginning, you would probably think they had said “bat”, despite the lack of voicing.
The pen-pin merger is mainly a Southern thing (well, there’s also Bakersfield, that linguistic anomaly…). As Vox mentioned, they’d generally both come out closer to how a non-merger would say “pin”.
Depends on the New Yorker; for example, stereotypically New Yorkers have non-rhotic accents and thus don’t pronounce /r/s except before vowels, which can make words homophonous for them which aren’t for rhotic speakers (e.g., “formally” and “formerly”, perhaps). But I believe non-rhoticity is quickly disappearing from many strata of New York accents.
No, it’s not. The Great Vowel Shift happened long before America was known as “America.” It began around 1200 and ended by 1600 as the middle English period completely transitioned into the early modern English period.
Discussions of the cot-caught merger in American English tend to become complicated due to the presence of a second, less remarked upon linguistic phenomenon–the father-bother merger. This occurs in pretty much all North American dialects, though it seems that the effects are far from uniform, as it seems to vary from region to region which sound is given “priority”, i.e. whether one says “fother” or “bahther”. From the sound samples above, it seems Vox Imperatorus favors the father-sound, whereas RickJay probably tends to use the bother-sound for both.
It’s worth noting however, that the distinction between these sounds usually is preserved before the letter R–that is to say that most (though certainly not all) North American English speakers would clearly distinguish between “tar” and “tore”. But even among these speakers I’ve noticed a tendency to merge them before R in certain words, e.g. “harrible” instead of “horrible”, yet always a “whore” rather than a “har”.
Additionally, while most cot-caught merging speakers (whom I’ve encountered, at least) tend to normally favor the “cot” sound, I’ve noticed that many speakers in the Pittsburgh area tend to prefer the “caught” sound instead. This sound is also, incidentally, extended to the “father” sound–usually even before R, with the result that “park” will often be pronounced exactly like “pork”. But Pittsburgh has always had a particular unique rendition of most vowels–I’m not even sure how to transcribe what they do to the A in “cat” (something like “cyeeat”, but all glided into a single sound).
Well, "bother"and “horrible” have about the same initial vowel sound to me, i.e. “bather” and “harrible”. “Tore” is completely different, rhyming with “gore” or “war”.
No, there are dialects where the sound in the first syllable of “horrible” is like the one you’re thinking of for the <o> in “bother”. The sound in “tore” remains distinct. (On edit: What Vox said)
Part of what may be complicating things here is that, regardless of how things are actually phonetically realized, people differ on whether to think of the sound in “store” as “aw” or “oh”; even people who pronounce it the same way can think of the underlying phoneme differently.
If you’re an American and not from a couple select areas, you probably pronounce “horrible” like “whore-able”. But it’s not that hard to see why one might do differently; think of “borrow”, or “sorry”.
(If you’re Canadian, the above discussion might be terribly confusing)
I just want to emphasize what Indistinguishable says here. It’s a very strange phenomenon, but one I’ve experienced first hand.
Bengali, Hindi, and several other Indian languages have distinct phonemes for (1) unvoiced unaspirated, (2) unvoiced aspirated, (3) voiced unaspirated, and (4) unvoiced unaspirated forms of velar plosives (k, kh, g, gh), palato-alveolar affricates (ch, chh, j, jh), retroflex plosives (t, th, d, dh), dental plosives (t, th, d, dh), and bilabial plosives (p, ph, b, bh).
Having grown up bilingual, I naturally pair them by voicing first and then distinguish them by aspiration. However, I’ve noticed that native English speakers don’t hear them as two pairs (k kh, g gh – or even k k, g g) but in a strange 1-to-3 arrangement (g k g g) or alternating according to aspiration (g k g k).
It rolls over into perceptions of Indian accents. In Indian English, plosives that are spelled without aspiration (that is, without an H following) are pronounced unaspirated, and it plays hell with the native English ear.
“Pat, your cat took my chair” is sometimes heard as “Bat, your gad doog my jair.”
I understand what you and Vox are saying, and I’ve heard that pronunciation before. But TorpedoTed seems to be saying that in dialects where the vowel sounds in “father” and “bother” have not merged, the difference between them is analogous to the difference between “tar” and “tore.” And I’ve never heard “bother” pronounced with the same vowel sound as “tore”; hence my question.
What TorpedoTed was pointing out is that, in some sense, the vowel in “tar” is the same as that in “cot” (particularly given the father-bother merger) and the vowel in “tore” is the same as that in “caught”, yet even speakers who pronounce “cot” and “caught” the same way do not pronounce “tar” and “tore” the same way. That is, the cot-caught merger is neutralized immediately before /r/.
I think the main reason for this is that, regardless of actual phonetic realization, many speakers do not conceptualize the vowel in “tore” as the “aw” of “caught”, but rather as “oh”.
That’s an interesting wiki link. I’m in one of the areas listed as not having undergone the horse/hoarse merger, and when I think about it, I guess I really don’t pronounce both of those the same. “Hoarse” has a slightly “harder”, more distinct “or” sound. “Shore” and “whore” are the same way; “whore” is more defined and drawn-out.
The weird thing was that it gave a list of words on the left side that Southerners should apparently pronounce all with the same “a” sound as horrible and bother, but I seem to kind of alternate between the “or” sound and the “ar” sound unconsciously for a lot of them, like “forest” and “origin”. I would also put “quarrel” clearly in the “or” category. The article does mention that a lot of it is idiosyncratic, though.
No, none of these are anywhere close to that (though perhaps it is plausible to have actually noticed the march forward of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift). I would by default attribute claims otherwise to the recency illusion.
I say “Cot” and “caught” exactly the same, pronounce “Father” and “Bother” to rhyme, and do not pronounce “tar” and “tore” the same. But the vowel sounds in “tore” and “caught” are nothing alike to me.
Quite fascinating. How do “Tore” and “caught” sound where they have the same vowel? Wouldn’t that make “caught” sound like “Coat,” as in something you wear?