Zompist Bboard Again

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 11:28 am

jcb wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:52 pm How does everybody pronounce "born", "torn", and "worn"? Are they one syllable or two? (Do they rhyme with "corn", or with "Lauren"?)

I am having great difficulty deducing the meaning of the question - it only makes sense if we assume that many of the audience are not people!

The three words have an existence independent of the verbs, so I am not surprised that I do not reform them from the verbs, more precisely from the simple pasts, but use the inherited monosyllabic pronunciations. My pronunciation is non-rhotic. If I did reform them with a syllabic ending, I would expect the forms to have the same vowels as the simple past, not a new vowel as in "Lauren", i.e. not as in the first syllables of foreign or sporran.

I don't understand what you're saying. Do you have different vowels in the first syllables of "Lauren" and "foreign"?

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 12:44 pm

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 11:28 am

jcb wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:52 pm How does everybody pronounce "born", "torn", and "worn"? Are they one syllable or two? (Do they rhyme with "corn", or with "Lauren"?)

I am having great difficulty deducing the meaning of the question - it only makes sense if we assume that many of the audience are not people!

The three words have an existence independent of the verbs, so I am not surprised that I do not reform them from the verbs, more precisely from the simple pasts, but use the inherited monosyllabic pronunciations. My pronunciation is non-rhotic. If I did reform them with a syllabic ending, I would expect the forms to have the same vowels as the simple past, not a new vowel as in "Lauren", i.e. not as in the first syllables of foreign or sporran.

I don't understand what you're saying. Do you have different vowels in the first syllables of "Lauren" and "foreign"?

Lauren and foreign in SSBE have LOT, whereas the "new vowel" in Lauren that Richard W refers to is how in most NAE varieties except for some East Coast varieties LOT before /r/ merges with NORTH/FORCE except in tomorrow, borrow, sorrow, and often sorry.

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 12:44 pm

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 11:28 am

jcb wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:52 pm How does everybody pronounce "born", "torn", and "worn"? Are they one syllable or two? (Do they rhyme with "corn", or with "Lauren"?)

I am having great difficulty deducing the meaning of the question - it only makes sense if we assume that many of the audience are not people!

The three words have an existence independent of the verbs, so I am not surprised that I do not reform them from the verbs, more precisely from the simple pasts, but use the inherited monosyllabic pronunciations. My pronunciation is non-rhotic. If I did reform them with a syllabic ending, I would expect the forms to have the same vowels as the simple past, not a new vowel as in "Lauren", i.e. not as in the first syllables of foreign or sporran.

I don't understand what you're saying. Do you have different vowels in the first syllables of "Lauren" and "foreign"?

I have the same vowel in the first syllables of those two words, but it is the LOT vowel, whereas the other words have NORTH or FORCE. (For me worn and torn have FORCE, like the simple pasts, but born is less associated with the verb bear and has NORTH; for most non-Scottish BrE speakers NORTH and FORCE would be the same anyway and so all three will rhyme with corn.)

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 12:44 pm

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 11:28 am If I did reform them with a syllabic ending, I would expect the forms to have the same vowels as the simple past, not a new vowel as in "Lauren", i.e. not as in the first syllables of foreign or sporran.

I don't understand what you're saying. Do you have different vowels in the first syllables of "Lauren" and "foreign"?

No, they have the vowel of LOT, not the vowel of NORTH (or of FORCE). Incidentally, how do you pronounce borne? It is reported that born has NORTH but borne has FORCE.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 1:05 pm

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 12:44 pm

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 11:28 am
I am having great difficulty deducing the meaning of the question - it only makes sense if we assume that many of the audience are not people!

The three words have an existence independent of the verbs, so I am not surprised that I do not reform them from the verbs, more precisely from the simple pasts, but use the inherited monosyllabic pronunciations. My pronunciation is non-rhotic. If I did reform them with a syllabic ending, I would expect the forms to have the same vowels as the simple past, not a new vowel as in "Lauren", i.e. not as in the first syllables of foreign or sporran.

I don't understand what you're saying. Do you have different vowels in the first syllables of "Lauren" and "foreign"?

Lauren and foreign in SSBE have LOT, whereas the "new vowel" in Lauren that Richard W refers to is how in most NAE varieties except for some East Coast varieties LOT before /r/ merges with NORTH/FORCE except in tomorrow, borrow, sorrow, and often sorry.

I did not realize that there were dialects where "Lauren, foreign" have LOT instead of NORTH or FORCE like "born, torn, worn".

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 1:30 pm

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 12:44 pm

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 11:28 am If I did reform them with a syllabic ending, I would expect the forms to have the same vowels as the simple past, not a new vowel as in "Lauren", i.e. not as in the first syllables of foreign or sporran.

I don't understand what you're saying. Do you have different vowels in the first syllables of "Lauren" and "foreign"?

No, they have the vowel of LOT, not the vowel of NORTH (or of FORCE). Incidentally, how do you pronounce borne? It is reported that born has NORTH but borne has FORCE.

"born" = "borne" = NORTH = FORCE = /bor.n=/ or /bor.In/ (two syllables)
"Bourne" (the name) = NORTH = FORCE = /born/ (one syllable)
"Lauren" (the name) = NORTH = FORCE = /lor.n=/ or /lor.In/ (two syllables)
"(for)lorn" = NORTH = FORCE = /lor.n=/ or /lor.In/ or /lorn/ (One or two syllables both sound fine, probably because it's more removed from "lose" than "born" is from "bear", and is less common.)

NORTH and FORCE are merged for me, and I would describe them as the same phoneme as GOAT.

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 1:30 pm Incidentally, how do you pronounce borne? It is reported that born has NORTH but borne has FORCE.

Yes, this is true for me.

anteallach wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 1:06 pm

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 12:44 pm

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 11:28 am
I am having great difficulty deducing the meaning of the question - it only makes sense if we assume that many of the audience are not people!

The three words have an existence independent of the verbs, so I am not surprised that I do not reform them from the verbs, more precisely from the simple pasts, but use the inherited monosyllabic pronunciations. My pronunciation is non-rhotic. If I did reform them with a syllabic ending, I would expect the forms to have the same vowels as the simple past, not a new vowel as in "Lauren", i.e. not as in the first syllables of foreign or sporran.

I don't understand what you're saying. Do you have different vowels in the first syllables of "Lauren" and "foreign"?

I have the same vowel in the first syllables of those two words, but it is the LOT vowel, whereas the other words have NORTH or FORCE. (For me worn and torn have FORCE, like the simple pasts, but born is less associated with the verb bear and has NORTH; for most non-Scottish BrE speakers NORTH and FORCE would be the same anyway and so all three will rhyme with corn.)

The simple past of bear, bore, tends to be rather infrequently used in practice, which might explain this.

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 1:32 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 1:05 pm

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 12:44 pm
I don't understand what you're saying. Do you have different vowels in the first syllables of "Lauren" and "foreign"?

Lauren and foreign in SSBE have LOT, whereas the "new vowel" in Lauren that Richard W refers to is how in most NAE varieties except for some East Coast varieties LOT before /r/ merges with NORTH/FORCE except in tomorrow, borrow, sorrow, and often sorry.

I did not realize that there were dialects where "Lauren, foreign" have LOT instead of NORTH or FORCE like "born, torn, worn".

Lērisama (and I) already gave an example of this above!

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 8:57 pm

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 1:32 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 1:05 pm
Lauren and foreign in SSBE have LOT, whereas the "new vowel" in Lauren that Richard W refers to is how in most NAE varieties except for some East Coast varieties LOT before /r/ merges with NORTH/FORCE except in tomorrow, borrow, sorrow, and often sorry.

I did not realize that there were dialects where "Lauren, foreign" have LOT instead of NORTH or FORCE like "born, torn, worn".

Lērisama (and I) already gave an example of this above!

I don't think jcb realized that Lērisama and your [ɔ] is LOT ─ in GA /ɔ/ is conventionally used for THOUGHT in non-cot-caught-merged varieties or, before /r/, for NORTH/FORCE (even though some call this /o/).

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 10:15 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 8:57 pm

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 1:32 pm
I did not realize that there were dialects where "Lauren, foreign" have LOT instead of NORTH or FORCE like "born, torn, worn".

Lērisama (and I) already gave an example of this above!

I don't think jcb realized that Lērisama and your [ɔ] is LOT ─ in GA /ɔ/ is conventionally used for THOUGHT in non-cot-caught-merged varieties or, before /r/, for NORTH/FORCE (even though some call this /o/).

Indeed, I thought LOT was /A/, but I remember now that earlier in this thread I was told that some British dialects do have /O/ for LOT when I was asking about why Japanese uses its /o/ when borrowing words with LOT in them.

jcb wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 2:30 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 10:15 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 8:57 pm Lērisama (and I) already gave an example of this above!

I don't think jcb realized that Lērisama and your [ɔ] is LOT ─ in GA /ɔ/ is conventionally used for THOUGHT in non-cot-caught-merged varieties or, before /r/, for NORTH/FORCE (even though some call this /o/).

Indeed, I thought LOT was /A/, but I remember now that earlier in this thread I was told that some British dialects do have /O/ for LOT when I was asking about why Japanese uses its /o/ when borrowing words with LOT in them.

This is why we have lexical sets, e.g. my [a] is LOT/FATHER (I say FATHER here because I don't pronounce palm this way) while in SSBE [a] is TRAP.

Different type of question: in the Hobbit (which I'm translating into my conlang Sajiwan as most of you will know), there's the following passage:

One of the dwarves had fallen over him in the shadows where he lay, and had rolled down with a bump from the platform on to the floor.

I'm trying to find a good translation for the "over". What happened when someone falls "over" someone else? Did they collide or not? And what could be the cause (i.e. what movement did the dwarf make before "falling over" Bilbo? I only have one translation at hand currently (the Dutch one) but it kinda just copies the English and doesn't make much sense to me given the "rolled down ..." etc.

(Also, shouldn't it be "onto" the floor? "on to the floor" to me sounds like he rolled on, eventually reaching the floor.)


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 06, 2025 2:36 pm

One of the dwarves had fallen over him in the shadows where he lay, and had rolled down with a bump from the platform on to the floor.

I'm trying to find a good translation for the "over". What happened when someone falls "over" someone else? Did they collide or not? And what could be the cause (i.e. what movement did the dwarf make before "falling over" Bilbo? I only have one translation at hand currently (the Dutch one) but it kinda just copies the English and doesn't make much sense to me given the "rolled down ..." etc.

(Also, shouldn't it be "onto" the floor? "on to the floor" to me sounds like he rolled on, eventually reaching the floor.)

I understand the passage as the dwarf not noticing Bilbo and either tripping over them or stepping on them and losing their balance, snd because of this falling down onto the floor in a more spectacular than usual way.

I think ⟨on to⟩ rather than ⟨onto⟩ is Tolkein's archaicity.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Sat Sep 06, 2025 2:58 pmI understand the passage as the dwarf not noticing Bilbo and either tripping over them or stepping on them and losing their balance, snd because of this falling down onto the floor in a more spectacular than usual way.

Thank you! That makes sense indeed, mentioning the "shadows" where Bilbo was invisible to the walking dwarf.


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 06, 2025 4:00 pm

Lērisama wrote: ↑Sat Sep 06, 2025 2:58 pmI understand the passage as the dwarf not noticing Bilbo and either tripping over them or stepping on them and losing their balance, snd because of this falling down onto the floor in a more spectacular than usual way.

Thank you! That makes sense indeed, mentioning the "shadows" where Bilbo was invisible to the walking dwarf.

I read this the same exact way as Lērisama myself.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 3:32 pm

jcb wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 2:30 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 10:15 pm

I don't think jcb realized that Lērisama and your [ɔ] is LOT ─ in GA /ɔ/ is conventionally used for THOUGHT in non-cot-caught-merged varieties or, before /r/, for NORTH/FORCE (even though some call this /o/).

Indeed, I thought LOT was /A/, but I remember now that earlier in this thread I was told that some British dialects do have /O/ for LOT when I was asking about why Japanese uses its /o/ when borrowing words with LOT in them.

This is why we have lexical sets, e.g. my [a] is LOT/FATHER (I say FATHER here because I don't pronounce palm this way) while in SSBE [a] is TRAP.

Speaking of broken lexical sets, am I the only one for whom the CURE lexical set, which Wikipedia lists as containing "poor, tourist, pure, plural, jury, etc" isn't close to being a set?

For me:
NORTH/FORCE: "poor, boor, Moore, gourmet, gourd"
GOOSE+NURSE/LETTER or GOOSE: "tour"
NEAR: "pure, cure, curious, fury, bureau"
NURSE/LETTER: "plural, jury, sure, lure, mature, luxurious, rural, endure, bourgeois, Ural, manure, tourney, neural, Bourbon"

"your" is NURSE/LETTER in casual/quick speech, and NORTH/FORCE in careful speech.

jcb wrote: ↑Sat Sep 06, 2025 10:44 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 3:32 pm

jcb wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 2:30 pm
Indeed, I thought LOT was /A/, but I remember now that earlier in this thread I was told that some British dialects do have /O/ for LOT when I was asking about why Japanese uses its /o/ when borrowing words with LOT in them.

This is why we have lexical sets, e.g. my [a] is LOT/FATHER (I say FATHER here because I don't pronounce palm this way) while in SSBE [a] is TRAP.

Speaking of broken lexical sets, am I the only one for whom the CURE lexical set, which Wikipedia lists as containing "poor, tourist, pure, plural, jury, etc" isn't close to being a set?

For me:
NORTH/FORCE: "poor, boor, Moore, gourmet, gourd"
GOOSE+NURSE/LETTER or GOOSE: "tour"
NEAR: "pure, cure, curious, fury, bureau"
NURSE/LETTER: "plural, jury, sure, lure, mature, luxurious, rural, endure, bourgeois, Ural, manure, tourney, neural, Bourbon"

"your" is NURSE/LETTER in casual/quick speech, and NORTH/FORCE in careful speech.

I honestly don't like "CURE" for this reason. For instance, I have:

/ur/ in poor, tour, Moore, lure
/jur/~/jər/ in pure, cure
/jər/ in curious, fury, bureau, Ural, euro, Europe
/ur/~/ɔr/ in Boer, gourmet
/ɔr/ in gourd, boor
/ɔr/~/ər/ in your, you're
/ur/~/ər/ in sure, mature, endure, manure
/ər/ in plural, jury, luxurious, rural, tourney, Bourbon
/ʊ/ in bourgeois (i.e. /bʊʒˈwɑ/)

jcb wrote: ↑Sat Sep 06, 2025 10:44 pm Speaking of broken lexical sets, am I the only one for whom the CURE lexical set, which Wikipedia lists as containing "poor, tourist, pure, plural, jury, etc" isn't close to being a set?

For me those mix at least three phonemes.

You're certainly not alone in pronunciations like [por jor] for poor, your.

Here's what I have for your words (and a few more from CURE):

[ur]: poor, boor, Moor(e), lure, mature, luxurious, rural, endure, neural, tourist, bourgeois
[jur]: pure, cure, curious, fury, bureau, Ural, euro, secure-- endure can also go here
[or]: gourmet, gourd, your (if emphasized)
[r̩]: tourney, bourbon, jury, sure, your, during, plural
[ur̩]: tour, manure

Mine again, rewritten with phonemes, for ease of comparison, and a little more thought:
/u.r=/: tour
/ur/ or /u.r=/: tourist
/ur/ or /or/: Boer, gourmet
/ur/ or /r=/: bourgeois
/or/: poor, boor, Moor, Moore, gourd
/jor/: your (careful speech)
/r=/: lure, mature, luxurious, rural, endure, neural, tourney, bourbon, jury, sure, during, plural, manure, tambourine
/jr=/: Ural, euro, Europe, your (quick speech)
/ir/: pure, cure, curious, secure, fury, bureau

Observations:
(1) In my ideolect/dialect, /ur/ became /r=/ or /or/. (I can't find a reason that determines which. Maybe the labial helped keep the vowel rounded at /or/ instead of becoming /r=/, but then what about "gourmet, gourd, bourbon"?) Then /j/ got deleted when it followed a coronal. Then /jr=/ in the middle of a word became /ir/.
(2) There are some stragglers and oddballs. I can understand why "Boer, gourmet, bourgeois" are strange, because they're both rare and foreign words, but why would "tour, tourist" still be holdouts?
(3) Comparing Zompist's /ur/ and /r=/ words to mine, it sorta looks like Zompist's formative years were during the beginning of this shift, and mine were a generation later, given how more of his /r=/ words are common ones, and his /ur/ words rarer ones, and how those remaining /ur/ words almost all shifted to /r=/ or /or/ for me.

Anyways, it's nice to know I'm not the only one that the CURE set doesn't hold for.