# The vowel sound in "watch", "log"



## ampurdan

Hi,

I wonder if I could just pronounce the sound in "watch" and "log" just as a short "o oberta" in Catalan and it would sound OK to any English speaker. I think it would be something in the middle of short sound many Brits produce and the long sound most Americans are used to.


----------



## roboir

Hi ampurdan,

see my reply to your thread on *north*, *short* and *awe *to have an idea about where exactly these sounds lie.

As regards, watch and log = *[ɒ] *, yes I do think that Catalan open 'o' sound is a near enough aproximant for English speakers to understand, certainly much closer than Castilian pure 'o' or 'a'. Very advantageous to Catalan & Portuguese-speakers when it comes to learning other languages, I might add!


----------



## merquiades

Hi Ampurdan. In my East Coast American English, I pronounce watch with an A sound like in À in Català and the O in log like the O oberta in Catalan but quite short...  I'm not saying it's to be imitated... just my imput.  I think Englishmen pronounce the A in Watch with a really long vowel sound, kind of like a double O, if that's the accent you're aiming for.


----------



## sound shift

merquiades said:


> I think Englishmen pronounce the A in Watch with a really long vowel sound, kind of like a double O, if that's the accent you're aiming for.


I don't agree. I pronounce it short, as do all the BE speakers I hear.  "The Germanic Languages" by Ekkehard König and Johan van der Auwera (eds) says the low back vowel in "watch" is short in BE. It goes on to say that in BE it is pronounced with the lips rounded  and is  thus best represented as /ɒ/, whereas in standard varieties of American English it is pronounced with the lips unrounded and is thus better represented as /ɑ/.


----------



## ernest_

sound shift said:


> I don't agree. I pronounce it short, as do all the BE speakers I hear.  "The Germanic Languages" by Ekkehard König and Johan van der Auwera (eds) says the low back vowel in "watch" is short in BE. It goes on to say that in BE it is pronounced with the lips rounded  and is  thus best represented as /ɒ/, whereas in standard varieties of American English it is pronounced with the lips unrounded and is thus better represented as /ɑ/.



I agree. This is most obvious in the word "got". In BE it sounds just like in Catalan "got", whereas in AE the vowel is typically unrounded and sounds like a "a", "gaht".


----------



## Orreaga

I think the "o" in "log" is longer than the "a" in "watch".  I've observed this difficulty in distinction with native Spanish speakers who tend to prefer a short pronunciation for all English vowels and are confused when they are misunderstood.  

I don't know if it's a "rule", but I perceive a longer vowel when followed by a voiced consonant (as in "log") and a shorter vowel when followed by an unvoiced one ("watch").  Think of the difference between "lock" and "log", at least in my fairly standard AmE the latter is slightly (but significantly) longer.  I think the longer vowel helps the listener to hear the voiced consonant and not confuse it with an unvoiced one.

For instance, at a cafe with a friend from Argentina, I observe that he asks for his coffee in a "mug" (i.e., a ceramic, not paper container) but he pronounces the "u" in "mug" with a short sound which makes it sound like "mock".  Often he is not understood and is asked to repeat himself.  Then he'll turn to me and ask why they didn't understand him and I have a hard time explaining why.  When I tell him to lengthen the vowel in "mug" he exaggerates by saying "maaaaaaaaaag" which doesn't work, either.


----------



## ampurdan

Merquiades has made me realize that I did not choose the right words. The vowel sound in "log" and "watch" is similar in British English (RP, I guess): /w*ɒ*tʃ/ and /l*ɒ*g/, but it's different in American English (General American, I guess): /w*ɑ:*tʃ/ and /l*ɔ:*g/ (according to the phonetic transcription of the Wordreference dictionary).

Anyway, /ɑ:/ is supposed to be a long vowel (at least that's what the ":" imply, right?), then, why do they transcribe phonetically "watch" as /w*ɑ:*tʃ/ for Amercian English if it is not long?

EDIT - I've found some information about this shortening of long vowels after unvoiced consonants in the Wikipedia article about RP:



> "Long" and "short" are relative to each other. Because of phonological process affecting vowel length, short vowels in one context can be longer than long vowels in another context.[21] For example, a long vowel followed by a fortis consonant sound (/p/, /k/, /s/, etc.) is shorter; _reed_ is thus pronounced [ɹiːd̥] while _heat_ is [hiʔt].[_citation needed_] Conversely, the short vowel /æ/ becomes longer if it is followed by a lenis consonant. Thus, _bat_ is pronounced [b̥æʔt] and _bad_ is [b̥æːd̥]. In natural speech, the plosives /t/ and /d/ may be unreleased utterance-finally, thus distinction between these words would rest mostly on vowel length.[20]


Orreaga is American, so I guess this particular feature is common in both sides of the pond.



merquiades said:


> if that's the accent you're aiming for.



I'm not aiming to speak in any particular accent (not for the time being, at least), but with a pronunciation that could be universally understood. Of course, I'm also interested in understanding all main English accents.


----------



## ernest_

Orreaga said:


> I don't know if it's a "rule", but I perceive a longer vowel when followed by a voiced consonant (as in "log") and a shorter vowel when followed by an unvoiced one ("watch").  Think of the difference between "lock" and "log", at least in my fairly standard AmE the latter is slightly (but significantly) longer.  I think the longer vowel helps the listener to hear the voiced consonant and not confuse it with an unvoiced one.



Yes, it's a well-known thing, called "pre-fortis clipping". However, a clipped long vowel is still longer than a short vowel, e.g., the [i:] in "beat" is shorter than the [i:] in "bead" but longer than the [ɪ] in "bid".



> For instance, at a cafe with a friend from Argentina, I observe that he asks for his coffee in a "mug" (i.e., a ceramic, not paper container) but he pronounces the "u" in "mug" with a short sound which makes it sound like "mock".  Often he is not understood and is asked to repeat himself.  Then he'll turn to me and ask why they didn't understand him and I have a hard time explaining why.  When I tell him to lengthen the vowel in "mug" he exaggerates by saying "maaaaaaaaaag" which doesn't work, either.



But is it the inadequate vowel length that makes him be misunderstood, or is it that he mispronounces the [ʌ] as [a]? In general, it is said that vowel length in American English is not relevant (in comparison to British English), but I don't know to what extent this is true.


----------



## Orreaga

ernest_ said:


> But is it the inadequate vowel length that makes him be misunderstood, or is it that he mispronounces the [ʌ] as [a]? In general, it is said that vowel length in American English is not relevant (in comparison to British English), but I don't know to what extent this is true.


Perhaps this is better discussed in the English Only forum, but I think as far as the original question is concerned, there is a range of pronunciations of these words that would be understood in context.  It's not necessary to have a "perfect" pronunciation to be understood, especially in English which has so many variations, so many non-native speakers, and where most native speakers have regular contact with non-native speakers.

My example of the Argentine friend is really an exception, but it is one where I thought the length of the vowel perhaps influenced the ability of the listener to comprehend.  It wouldn't make sense to teach him the "accurate" pronunciation of isolated words, when the rest of his speech has a strong Argentine accent (even after 30+ years in the US).  The trick is to find a strategy that would help him be understood given the range of sounds he's capable of making, and it might even include hand gestures or pointing to make himself clear, or speaking in complete sentences, rather than just saying "cofinamac, plis".

So, Ampurdan: you obviously have an awareness of the different sounds in English and I think your original solution to pronouncing these words is fine and should give you no problems.


----------

