# Pronunciation: blood [vs soon, book...]



## BrendaPR

Why "blood" pronunciation is not like "soon", "toon", "bloom", "book"?


----------



## dragonfly37

Because English is a ridiculous language with no consistent vowel sounds.  (I know this isn't helpful, but anyways...  maybe there's a rule, but I have a feeling it's just the way it is.)

Edit: And, by the way, book doesn't fit with those other words... Book rhymes with took, and cook, but not soon.

Edit #2:  Now that I thought about it, maybe there is a rule...  All the "oohk" sounds (took, cook, etc.) end in a "k", so maybe that pattern calls for a particular sound..  And your other examples end in "n" or "m" (similar consonant sounds).  Maybe the "d" at the end of blood is why it's different?
Edit #3:  Actually, scratch that:  brood and food both end with "d"... I'm guessing now that blood is just one of those exceptions.  Sorry about the crazy edits, but I had fun.


----------



## savannah

dragonfly37 said:


> Edit #3: Actually, scratch that: brood and food both end with "d"... I'm guessing now that blood is just one of those exceptions. Sorry about the crazy edits, but I had fun.


 
And then there's good, which sounds like neither blood nor food...


----------



## dragonfly37

Ah, good point...  English is more freakish than I'd imagined..


----------



## majlo

As far as I know there _isn't _any rule which regulates the pronunciation in English, but, I think, this is what makes this language beautiful.


----------



## Matching Mole

In Britain there is "received pronunciation", known as RP, (kind of how the Queen speaks). This was intended to create a standard for British English pronunciation, but is now seen as elitist, class-bound, geographically-biased, etc. and has fallen from favour since the 50s and 60s.

I'm simplifying, but there is a detailed discussion on the subject in Wikipedia.

The range of vowel pronunciations in England alone is astonishing, in some areas you need only travel a few miles in order to hear a notable difference.

Just and example: I pronounce book and buck the same (which is not correct RP), but my grandfather pronounced book to rhyme with spook, although we pronounced buck the same as each other.


----------



## sound shift

majlo said:


> As far as I know there _isn't _any rule which regulates the pronunciation in English, but, I think, this is what makes this language beautiful.


No, there are rules, but there are so many of them and so many exceptions that it seems as if there aren't any. There are three reasons for the eccentricities of English spelling:
1.) Spelling often represents the former pronunciation. There has been no major spelling reform aimed at tidying these anomalies up;
2.) The fact that English has multiple origins; and 
3.) The fact that the 52 different sounds of English have to be represented with an alphabet of 26 letters.


----------



## Voxy

majlo said:


> As far as I know there _isn't _any rule which regulates the pronunciation in English, but, I think, this is what makes this language beautiful.



Does that mean that any native speaker would understand 
(in the sense of comprehend) _blood_ as _blood_ (as we know it) 
when it is pronounced as in _mood, school_ or other ooish words?

Just curious...

Well, though, i just think the English language contains some 
irregularities like any other language.

EDIT: By the way, just feel free to correct me, if necessary.


----------



## Matching Mole

They would understand it from context almost certainly, but they would wonder where in the English speaking world the speaker could possibly be from! I don't know of any dialect or accent that pronounces blood to rhyme with mood.


----------



## Brioche

If you pronounced _blood_ with the oo sound of mood or school, I would probably hear blued [coloured, or tinged with blue].

Given time, I might work out that blood was what you were trying to say.


----------



## konungursvia

I think the real issue here is spelling. Why not blud? Most people posting have confused the two concepts, entirely distinct, of the spoken vowel sound, and the written letter, sometimes referred to as vowels as well (a,e,i,o,u for instance). English certainly is inconsistent with regards to spelling, but its vowels are perfectly consistent with the linguistic history of the words.


----------



## Voxy

Brioche said:


> If you pronounced _blood_ with the oo sound of mood or school, I would probably hear blued [coloured, or tinged with blue].
> 
> Given time, I might work out that blood was what you were trying to say.



Actually that is exactly what i came up with (after i posted my question 
of course). Anyhow, pronunciation and therefor understanding is strictly 
a matter of a given context, is it not?


----------



## panjandrum

Blood rhymes with flood.


----------



## Loob

I agree with konungursvia.

At various times in its history, _blood_ had the vowel sound in modern-day _rode_; _food_; and _good _before acquiring its present pronunciation_. _ 

It's a feature of English that spelling doesn't keep pace with phonetic change.  If it did, we wouldn't have such splendid orthographic throwbacks as "knight" 

Loob


----------



## Matching Mole

I see that "blood" is said to be etymologically related to Old High German "bluot", with the same meaning, and shares ancestry with the word "bloom".

I don't know how to pronounce OHG, but I'm guessing bluot may be closer to English pronunciations of "bloom" than it is to "blut" (in regard to the vowel sound).


----------



## Voxy

Loob said:


> ...
> It's a feature of English that spelling doesn't keep pace with phonetic change.  If it did, we wouldn't have such splendid orthographic throwbacks as "knight"



Funny, i wasn't aware that native english speakers consider (in the sense of to percieve) this as an 
issue within their language. Anyway, would any of you understand _knight_ correctly,
 if the *k* is spoken too? Or would that be just nonsense?

Or would that kind of (false) pronunciation eventually change the context 
(in which _knight_ is used)  into some ironic one? 
I know, that if you pronounce a word in a wrong way 
deliberately, some funny things can occur. Maybe it doesn't work 
with the word _knight_.


----------



## Matching Mole

I think it would just be silly to pron. the k in knight, it would certainly not be ironic. I understand what you are saying about changing pronunciations sometimes being funny, but I can't see this happening with knight. I think for this to work it tends to need some element of punning (i.e. it sounding like another word where there is at least some logical connection).

Would it be understood? Probably, again if the context made it clear, but we would probably think you were slightly mad.


----------



## xrayspex

_Does that mean that any native speaker would understand 
(in the sense of comprehend) blood as blood (as we know it) 
when it is pronounced as in mood, school or other ooish words?_

It probably wouldn't be a problem as long as you didn't end up with a homonym of another valid word.  "blood" rhying with "mood" would be understood as "blued". 

There is another very common US pronunciation of "blood"; one which rhymes with "odd".  

"I van to drink yor blodd!", as said by Bela Lugosi, and widely imitated since.


----------



## JamesM

Matching Mole said:


> I think it would just be silly to pron. the k in knight, it would certainly not be ironic. I understand what you are saying about changing pronunciations sometimes being funny, but I can't see this happening with knight.


 
Isn't it pronounced "kuh-niggit" somewhere in Monty Python's Holy Grail?  It does sound funny to pronounce it that way.


----------



## Matching Mole

Ah true, in fact I almost added that if you have a reputation for nonsense and have the talent to make it funny then it can work. You need to back it up with some clever stuff though. And people will still think you are mad


----------



## Voxy

Matching Mole said:


> Ah true, in fact I almost added that if you have a reputation for nonsense and have the talent to make it funny then it can work. You need to back it up with some clever stuff though. And people will still think you are mad



Yes, but this is strictly contextual by definition.  I mean a TV-Person,
who got tons of comedy reputation can deal with everything he/she 
wants, right? It is all about audience expectation. I just can't come up 
with a particular name, but i guess you've got the picture. 

Btw, i think it is quite a stretch but imagine i.e. the splendid british term 
_bloody mess_ (pronounced as in mood). It sounds pretty awful, even in 
my not so educated ears.  
I've got that hunch (and it is just a hunch), that _blood_ is pronounced like it is 
just for phonetic-aesthetical reasons. Anyone?


----------



## JamesM

I don't know that it's for aesthetic reasons.  I think it has more to do with the word's history than anything.  Otherwise, why would we have differences like blood, mood, and hood?   Three different vowel sounds, but all end in "ood."

If it's for aesthetic reasons, why would "flood" sound like 'blood", but "hood" sound like "good", and "food" sound like "mood"?  No, I think it has more to do with history than with what is pleasing to the ear.


----------



## Matching Mole

I agree JamesM. I think it may only seems "aesthetic" because we are used to hearing it a certain way, not because it's intrinsically nicer to hear in that way.

I think, for example, if you are unfamiliar with it, hearing people from parts of Lancashire (amongst other places) pronounce "book" to rhyme with "spook" sounds just as unlikely as pronouncing "bloody" to rhyme with "moody", but in fact many people do pronounce "book" in that way (and similar words like cook, look and hook, etc).


----------



## Voxy

JamesM said:


> I don't know that it's for aesthetic reasons.  I think it has more to do with the word's history than anything.  Otherwise, why would we have differences like blood, mood, and hood?   Three different vowel sounds, but all end in "ood."
> ...


Agreed. Well, but don't tell me that German is the most inconsistent
language in our world. 

Btw, i really start to love these forums. One have to ask, why took it
so long to find out. Go figure.


----------



## panjandrum

Matching Mole said:


> [...]
> I think, for example, if you are unfamiliar with it, hearing people from parts of Lancashire (amongst other places) pronounce "book" to rhyme with "spook" sounds just as unlikely as pronouncing "bloody" to rhyme with "moody", but in fact many people do pronounce "book" in that way (and similar words like cook, look and hook, etc).


There are lots of us.
Book, spook, cook, look, hook - all end with the same sounds.
Mood, hood, good, food.
All share the same vowel sound with moon, toon, soon, bloom ...
... and blue, shoe, flew ...
... in my accent.


----------



## se16teddy

Matching Mole said:


> I don't know of any dialect or accent that pronounces blood to rhyme with mood.


My grandfather, who was from Dalton, a pit village close to Rotherham (in south Yorkshire) pronounced blood to rhyme with mood / food, i.e. he pronounced it /blu:d/. I don't know any living speakers who do this - most Northern English speakers pronounce it /blud/, with the same vowel as, say, stud /stud/ or put /put/. You can usually find somebody somewhere who pronounces an English word as it is spelt!


----------



## Matching Mole

Strangely enough, Teddy, I was born about 20 miles away from Rotherham, in another pit village on the other side of Doncaster, and lived there until I was 24. That must  be a very localized accent, and I would like to hear it. The accents can vary from one side of a town to the other in Yorkshire, although I think Lancashire is the most spectacular in that regard.


----------



## deddish

Out of curiosity, how else would people spell the vowel sound "oo" from "book"? I've tried spelling it "eu," which kind-of almost works.


----------



## SuprunP

I've heard on the BBC Michael Bristow pronounce such words as budged, production etc. as (approximately) [b*ʊ*ʤɪt], [prəʊˈd'*ʊ*kʃən]. Unfortunately, I failed to find out where he actually hails from so as to be able to have some hints about the origin of his accent.

 But I wonder whether I can pronounce, for example, blood as [bl*ʊ*d] (copying Mr Bristow's manner of substituting *ʌ* with *ʊ*) and where does it happen to be a common accent?

Thanks.


----------



## entangledbank

This is the most noticeable feature of most accents in the North of England. No disrespect to speakers of those accents, but you definitely should not imitate it. It is not Standard English.


----------



## rhitagawr

I disagree with entangledbank. There's nothing wrong with the northern English pronunciation of [bl*ʊ*d]. And there's nothing wrong with regional accents in general. No one's suggesting that the Scots, Irish, and Welsh should speak like people from the Home Counties. The main thing is that you should speak clearly and not use regional words which outsiders aren't going to understand. After all, any standard language is just another dialect with a special status.


----------



## exgerman

rhitagawr said:


> I disagree with entangledbank. There's nothing wrong with the northern English pronunciation of [bl*ʊ*d]. And there's nothing wrong with regional accents in general. No one's suggesting that the Scots, Irish, and Welsh should speak like people from the Home Counties. The main thing is that you should speak clearly and not use regional words which outsiders aren't going to understand. After all, any standard language is just another dialect with a special status.



I think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Nobody is talking about what native speakers of regional accents do. Entangledbank is talking sense to wannabe speakers of regional accents.

The reason people advise against trying to imitate regional accents is that it's just about impossible to do successfully even with a coach. Imitating inconsistently is bound to make the speaker look foolish to both the speakers of the regional accent and to those of the standard.


----------



## ewie

/ʊ/ instead of /ʌ/ covers a vast area, easily as large as /ʌ/ instead of /ʊ/, if not slightly larger. Map.

I've had a listen to Mr Bristow and find it impossible to place his accent ~ it's kind of Northern _lite_.

P.S. 'Bristow' is actually a typical Southern name.  Another map.


----------



## rhitagawr

I take exgerman's point. It probably is better if learners all do the same thing, i.e. learn the standard language, and not branch out on their own. And people will find inconsistency strange. I was talking to an Austrian lady who said her friends had criticised her for picking up the local Midlands accent. (She lived in Tamworth.) I told her not to worry about it.


----------



## exgerman

rhitagawr said:


> I was talking to an Austrian lady who said her friends had criticised her for picking up the local Midlands accent. (She lived in Tamworth.) I told her not to worry about it.



That's different---everybody adjusts to the language around them, and it would be unnatural not to. I was talking about an artificial attempt to imitate a speech pattern.


----------



## SuprunP

*Thank you, everyone!*


----------



## Cagey

You may be interested in this discussion of the possible variations in the pronunciation of _blood_:
Pronunciation: blood


----------



## Alxmrphi

> There's nothing wrong with the northern English pronunciation of [bl*ʊ*d]. And there's nothing wrong with regional accents in general. No one's suggesting that the Scots, Irish, and Welsh should speak like people from the Home Counties. The main thing is that you should speak clearly and not use regional words which outsiders aren't going to understand. After all, any standard language is just another dialect with a special status.


I couldn't second that enough.


----------



## wolfbm1

Michael Bristow's way of pronouncing such words as budget, production, much and up can sound a bit funny for a person who hears them pronounced only in one way. I have just tried to say: _They won't let you borrow *much* money_ and _Inflation rate goes *up*_. I'm not going to make it a habit. It is interesting to know that not everybody in the UK uses Standard English. 
There are some words, however, which I'm never sure how to pronounce. They include: new, worry, suit, suitcase, sure and poor. But this, probably, is another topic.


----------



## ewie

wolfbm1 said:


> It is interesting to know that not everybody in the UK uses Standard English.


You'd be amazed just how _few_ people speak Standard English, Wolf


----------



## sound shift

'Standard English' refers to grammar and vocabulary, but standard English is spoken with various accents. Standard English ≠ 'Received Pronunciation'.


----------



## Alxmrphi

sound shift said:


> 'Standard English' refers to grammar and vocabulary, but standard English is spoken with various accents.


Beat me to it!


----------



## natkretep

Exactly. I don't think anyone really talks about a standard accent, though they might talk about a prestigious accent.


----------



## wolfbm1

I have just found an interesting site where one can hear a "Geordie" from Tyneside pronounce the word blood: http://www.soundcomparisons.com/Eng/Direct/Englishes/SglLgTynesideTrad.htm


----------

