# how to pronounce want and wont?



## missMD

Not won't, but wont as a habit or practice. I think that the vowel sound in wont is drawn out more and want is pronounced faster and crisper. Is that correct?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

I pronounce them identically.


----------



## natkretep

I pronounce them identically too. The W R dictionary also gives identical pronunciations.

See post 5.


----------



## Loob

missMD said:


> Not won't, but wont as a habit or practice. I think that the vowel sound in wont is drawn out more and want is pronounced faster and crisper. Is that correct?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


For me, *wont* and _*won't* _are produced identically (I think that's what GWB and natkretep are saying too).

_*Want* _has a different vowel sound. Technically, the main difference is that the vowel sound is more open - it's pronounced with the tongue lower in the mouth.

(You might like, also, to  see this Wiki International Phonetic alphabet chart for differences between various varieties of English in the pronunciation of various vowel sounds.)


----------



## natkretep

Sorry, I didn't look at your title. Yes, Loob is right, I was thinking of _wont_ and _won't_.

I use the vowel in LOT for _want_, and the vowel in GOAT for _wont_ and _won't_.


----------



## ribran

Unlike Loob and natkretep, I pronounce _want_ and _wont_ identically.

Mine is the first pronunciation listed here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wont


----------



## Loob

Thanks, ribran.  I've struck through my previous comment about "GWB and natkretep" because I was clearly making unwarranted assumptions.

I've just had a look at the OED, which says this about the pronunciation of  *wont* meaning custom or habit:


> *wont*, n.
> *Pronunciation:*  			 ( 			/wəʊnt/ 		; also (now chiefly)   				U.S. 			 			/wʌnt/ 		)


----------



## missMD

If "want" and "wont" are pronounced identically, how can you tell which one is the speaker talking about in this example:
-That piece of information is unwanted.
-That piece of information is unwonted.


----------



## Alxmrphi

They're identical for me, too.

Re: the post above, you can't tell, you have to use the context to make a decision, but for me it'd only ever be "unwanted" because I've never heard of _unwonted _before and I don't think many ordinary (non-linguaphiles) would have either.


----------



## Thelb4

missMD said:


> If "want" and "wont" are pronounced identically, how can you tell which one is the speaker talking about in this example:
> -That piece of information is unwanted.
> -That piece of information is unwonted.



"Unwanted" is far more common than "unwonted", therefore most native speakers would not say the latter word lest they confuse their audience. Technically, it could be either word.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Yeah it's like in General American, the LOT vowel is unrounded a lot of the time and there is no distinction between the words* impossible* and *impassable*. This is how a phonetics course opened up that I followed, the teacher asked the students to write down what they heard, and it was just to illustrate how differences can occur.

So saying /ɪmp*ɑ:*sɪbəl/ could be either word in a lot of American accents.
It's not uncommon in languages to have to make a decision between two words, if the context doesn't help, misunderstandings occur.

Language is not always an optimum way of communicating, those who study mistakes in language see this all the time, many people aren't aware of just how many mistakes are made each day and the masses of confusions that come up (especially when people from different areas talk to each other). I just read about a 10 year study of misunderstandings in speech and it opened my eyes to the ways in which language can fail as a 'perfect' tool. So understanding people can reach either conclusion shouldn't be too surprising.


----------



## ribran

missMD said:


> If "want" and "wont" are pronounced identically, how can you tell which one is the speaker talking about in this example:
> -That piece of information is unwanted.
> -That piece of information is unwonted.



I suppose there could be some confusion, but "unwonted" is not the sort of word people use in their day-to-day lives.


----------



## Gwan

Want and wont are the same for me (both distinct from won't). 

(Impossible and impassible are different though...)


----------



## ribran

Alxmrphi said:


> Yeah it's like in General American, the LOT vowel is unrounded a lot of the time and there is no distinction between the words* impossible* and *impassable*.



I'm not familiar with this merger. 

Usually, "impossible" has /ɑ/, and "impassable" has /æ/.


----------



## JamesM

Alxmrphi said:


> Yeah it's like in General American, the LOT vowel is unrounded a lot of the time and there is no distinction between the words* impossible* and *impassable*. This is how a phonetics course opened up that I followed, the teacher asked the students to write down what they heard, and it was just to illustrate how differences can occur.



I've never heard "impossible" and "impassable" merged.  I suppose it might be possible in a very strong Wisconsin accent, but not in most American accents.  I suspect it's more likely that the word "impassable" was not part of thestudents' vocabulary so they picked the word closest to it.  If "impossible" and "impassable" were indistinguishable, "hot" and "hat" would also sound the same.  I know of no American accent where "hot" and "hat" are pronounced identically.

Go to either of these text-to-speech demos and type in "The road was impassable so it was impossible to continue."  Select any of the US voices.  All of them have a difference between "impassable" and "impossible" (and "hot" and "hat", for that matter.)

http://www2.research.att.com/~ttsweb/tts/demo.php
http://www.acapela-group.com/text-to-speech-interactive-demo.html

The more you speak about these things, the more I wish you could travel around the U.S. and double-check some of these things that you've been told.  Frankly, it concerns me if this is what you are being taught.

As for "want" and "wont", I pronounce them both the same way.  "Wont" is very rarely used, in my experience.


----------



## xiaolijie

JamesM said:
			
		

> All of them have a difference between "impassible" and "impossible" (and "hot" and "hat", for that matter.)


I think some people who are not American native speakers are likely to exaggerate the similarity (or "hear" the close similarity) between the two vowels, because in their native variety of English (eg. British English), the distance between the two is greater.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> The more you speak about these things, the more I wish you could travel  around the U.S. and double-check some of these things that you've been  told.  Frankly, it concerns me if this is what you are being taught.


Most things I read about and have been part of (i.e. courses) have had recordings to back it up, I don't mean this in a bad way but I'm far too familiar with denial on behalf of other speakers to believe someone on here ober someone who teachers the subject at a university, i.e.  the study of variation in English, or someone like William Labov, one of the greatest pioneers in this field (who I've quoted a lot from in the last few days and I think might be what you were referring to).

I could very well be wrong, I take what I read as probably true, given the academic history/standing of the person, but I could never be personally 100% of this.
A 'text-to-speech' has no value for me in confirming anything, I would only be interested to hear real native recordings.


----------



## JamesM

Labov speaks of "cot-caught" merging and the rounding of the vowel in "lot".  He does not speak of a "hot-hat" merger, unless I've missed something.  Can you direct me to a discussion of it? 

I think either you've misapplied the principle or it was mistaught.  If you can find one recording where "poss" and "pass" have the same sound in an American accent I will be very impressed.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Was the_ hot-hat_ thing directed to me? I never mentioned it....
That's not the name of a merger I've come across.

Going to PM you my original source for the impossible/impassable thing in a few mins for you to check...
Edit: there is no rounding of LOT, it's unrounded in the merger.


----------



## ribran

Alxmrphi said:


> Was the_ hot-hat_ thing directed to me? I never mentioned it....
> That's not the name of a merger I've come across.
> 
> Going to PM you my original source for the impossible/impassable thing in a few mins for you to check...
> Edit: there is no rounding of LOT, it's unrounded in the merger.



Could you send it to me, too? Thanks.


----------



## JamesM

Alxmrphi said:


> Going to PM you my original source for the impossible/impassable thing in a few mins for you to check...
> Edit: there is no rounding of LOT, it's unrounded in the merger.



Yes, but that doesn't apply to an "ot/at" merger, which is how you're applying it here. The unrounding of "lot" doesn't make it sound like "lat".

As for how this applies to "want" and "wont", I'm not sure.  I don't think the principle applies at all in this particular case.


----------



## Alxmrphi

JamesM said:


> Yes, but that doesn't apply to an "ot/at" merger, which is how you're applying it here. The unrounding of "lot" doesn't make it sound like "lat".
> 
> As for how this applies to "want" and "wont", I'm not sure.  I don't think the principle applies at all in this particular case.



I know, it's la:t, it's a merger of the unrounded value of LOT with the length of CAUGHT. They take on each others features, which can happen in a merger.
This merger isn't simple, and words could sound the same in this merger but be different sounds depending on different region, the idea is more they have fallen together, rather than the exact sound which is represented now, because that could differ, and in this case does. Anyway sending links to clarify my earlier point now...


----------



## Alxmrphi

To clarify my point before, I was talking about how it's possible to interpret one utterance in multiple ways, and what I should have said was, Americans with a shifted vowel (for us Brits) of "impossible", lead us to believe the word could also be "impassable".

I did say "no distinction between" which was not the best thing for me to say as it could have been interpreted as there is no difference in both pronunciations for those people, so when they read the two words they might not be the same. In response to the possibility where it could be "unwonted" or "unwanted", my point was to illustrate how that can work in those examples.

As usually happens in shifts, one sound moves for another and therefore the altered pronunciation would be different. That's not what I meant and realise it wasn't clear, so am trying to rectify here. So for an American to say "impossible" or "impassible", has the very real potential and probability for a British person not to be able to instantly gauge what was said because they would register as being the same word. 

What a mess!


----------



## brian

Alxmrphi said:


> To clarify my point before, I was talking about how it's possible to interpret one utterance in multiple ways, and what I should have said was, Americans with a shifted vowel (for us Brits) of "impossible", lead *us* to believe the word could also be "impassable".
> 
> [...]
> 
> So for an American to say "impossible" or "impassible", has the very real potential and probability *for a British person* not to be able to instantly gauge what was said because they would register as being the same word.
> 
> What a mess!



Yes, very messy.  I had just written a reply when I noticed there was a page 2 to this thread, and I'm glad to see things are cleared up a bit.

What I originally wanted to reply to was the following:



			
				Alxmrphi said:
			
		

> there is no distinction between the words* impossible* and *impassable*.





			
				JamesM said:
			
		

> I've never heard "impossible" and "impassable" merged.  I suppose it  might be possible in a very strong Wisconsin accent, but not in most  American accents.





			
				Alxmrphi said:
			
		

> Most things I read about and have been part of (i.e. courses) have had  recordings to back it up, I don't mean this in a bad way but I'm far too  familiar with denial on behalf of other speakers to believe someone on  here ober someone who teachers the subject at a university [...]



In the same way that native speakers of a language mistakenly claim or deny things about their own speech, so too do listeners of another language mistakenly claim and deny things about what they hear. It's well known that people often can't produce or even perceive contrasts in languages different from their own, and that especially includes vowel contrasts.

So if you listen to a recording of someone saying _impossible_ and _impassible_, and *you* don't perceive a contrast, i.e. they sound the same to you, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is no actual acoustic (physical) or even perceptual contrast. (And, needless to say, even if you do perceive a contrast, or if there actually is an acoustic contrast, that doesn't mean the speaker intended there to be one: the two segments could simply be allophones, e.g. in free variation.)

Originally, I thought you meant that some GA speakers have merged _impossible_ and _impassible_, i.e. the two are pronounced identically, but now I'm pretty sure what you meant is that, *to a BE speaker*, one might be confused for the other, or the two might sound identical, which is definitely possible.

[Slightly off-topic anecdote: I have a contrast between _cot_ and _caught_, whereas most Canadians don't. I once helped a friend move into a new house, and afterwards, we were all sitting around drinking and talking, when she said, smiling, "Tomorrow I'm gonna celebrate by getting a bunch of caulk!" Everyone laughed except me, until I realized I needed to front the vowel slightly to get the pun. ]


----------



## berndf

Alxmrphi said:


> Was the_ hot-hat_ thing directed to me? I never mentioned it....
> That's not the name of a merger I've come across.
> 
> Going to PM you my original source for the impossible/impassable thing in a few mins for you to check...
> Edit: there is no rounding of LOT, it's unrounded in the merger.


It is a similar situation: /hɑt/ vs. /hæt/ and /ɪm'pɑsəbl/ vs /ɪm'pæsəbl/.

You are probably thinking of the variant /ɪm'pɑ:səbl/ which to my knowledge is extremely rare in AE. And if it is used in any variety of English than the "a" in "imp*a*ssable" is considerably longer that any the realization of "o" in imp*o*ssible in any variety of English (maybe with the exception of those people who say they live in /bɒ:stn/ but they round the vowel, so again: no confusion).


----------



## JamesM

Alxmrphi said:


> To clarify my point before, I was talking about how it's possible to interpret one utterance in multiple ways, and what I should have said was, Americans with a shifted vowel (for us Brits) of "impossible", lead us to believe the word could also be "impassable".
> 
> I did say "no distinction between" which was not the best thing for me to say as it could have been interpreted as there is no difference in both pronunciations for those people, so when they read the two words they might not be the same. In response to the possibility where it could be "unwonted" or "unwanted", my point was to illustrate how that can work in those examples.
> 
> As usually happens in shifts, one sound moves for another and therefore the altered pronunciation would be different. That's not what I meant and realise it wasn't clear, so am trying to rectify here. So for an American to say "impossible" or "impassible", has the very real potential and probability for a British person not to be able to instantly gauge what was said because they would register as being the same word.
> 
> What a mess!



Just to clarify further:

AE "passable" - flat, bright "a" - no equivalent "p_ss_" word in BE (I think)  It's the sound in "trap" in BE
AE "possible" - "ah" sound - similar to "passable" in BE
BE "possible" - darker, rounded "aw" sound - similar to "posable" in AE (with a double "ss" sound)

They overlap at "possible / passable".  There is a possibility for confusion there where "possible" in AE could sound like "passable" in BE. If a BE speaker hears "impossible" and "impassable" next to each other, spoken in AE, the sounds would be different, it's just that our "possible" sounds like your "passable".

As for "wont" and "want", it's not a merger in AE.  The words "Won't" ("will not" contracted) and "want" don't sound at all the same in AE.  It is just that many AE speakers pronounce "wont" (habit, accustomed to) with the same sound as "want".


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Originally, I thought you meant that some GA speakers have merged _impossible_ and _impassible_, i.e. the two are pronounced identically, but now I'm pretty sure what you meant is that, *to a BE speaker*, one might be confused for the other, or the two might sound identical, which is definitely possible.


Yep.
The response was to talk about words being the same, but I didn't highlight enough that I meant perception (i.e. to a Brit) rather than production (i.e. in the mind of the speaker).
Perception = same, production = not.


----------



## ribran

It's a good thing we have context to help us fill in the blanks.


----------



## ribran

berndf said:


> It is a similar situation: /hɑt/ vs. /hæt/ and /ɪm'pɑsəbl/ vs /ɪm'pæsəbl/.
> 
> You are probably thinking of the variant /ɪm'pɑ:səbl/ which to my knowledge is extremely rare in AE.



Both James and I pronounce it this way, and I would say it is the normal pronunciation where I live.


----------



## PaulQ

missMD said:


> If "want" and "wont" are pronounced identically, how can you tell which one is the speaker talking about in this example:
> -That piece of information is unwanted.
> -That piece of information is unwonted.


Do not use unwonted, use *unwont*. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unwont

I believe you could easily go a lifetime without seeing or hearing either unwonted or unwont.


----------



## berndf

ribran said:


> Both James and I pronounce it this way, and I would say it is the normal pronunciation where I live.


Do you agree with me on the length difference between _impossible _/ɪm'pɑsəbl/ and _impassable _/ɪm'pɑ:səbl/ which I find very hard not to perceive?


----------



## Alxmrphi

berndf said:


> Do you agree with me on the length difference between _impossible _/ɪm'pɑsəbl/ and _impassible _/ɪm'pɑ:səbl/ which I find very hard not to perceive?


Impass*a*ble
 
That tripped me up before


----------



## brian

For me, a 3-way contrast between: [æ] _impassible_ vs. [a] _impossible_ vs. [ɑ] _pause_.

As for _want/wont_, they are identical, but have a different vowel from the above: [ʌ]. If I'm being extra-careful, I _might_ use [ɑ] for _wont_, but never for _want_, although I know people who have [ɑ] for _want_ in more elevated speech.


----------



## JamesM

berndf said:


> Do you agree with me on the length difference between _impossible _/ɪm'pɑsəbl/ and _impassable _/ɪm'pɑ:səbl/ which I find very hard not to perceive?



I do.  I don't think we say "impossible" with the same lengthening as BE "impassable" except in rare cases where we are emphasizing the word.


----------



## ribran

I agree with James, berndf.


----------



## JamesM

brian said:


> For me, a 3-way contrast between: [æ] _impassible_ vs. [a] _impossible_ vs. [ɑ] _pause_.
> 
> As for _want/wont_, they are identical, but have a different vowel from the above: [ʌ]. If I'm being extra-careful, I _might_ use [ɑ] for _wont_, but never for _want_, although I know people who have [ɑ] for _want_ in more elevated speech.



It's the same for me, brian.


----------



## berndf

JamesM said:


> I do.  I don't think we say "impossible" with the same lengthening as BE "impassable" except in rare cases where we are emphasizing the word.





ribran said:


> I agree with James, berndf.


Thank you.


----------



## ribran

JamesM said:


> It's the same for me, brian.



What vowel do you use, then, when it's neither [ʌ] nor [ɑ]?


----------



## JamesM

I'm not very good with IPA but I believe it is [ʌ] for me.  How would the vowel in "want" be written for most AE speakers? "Want" and "wont" are much more closed-down to me compared to "impossible".


----------



## brian

ribran said:


> What vowel do you use, then, when it's neither [ʌ] nor [ɑ]?



What does _it_ refer to?


----------



## berndf

JamesM said:


> I'm not very good with IPA but I believe it is [ʌ] for me.  How would the vowel in "want" be written for most AE speakers? "Want" and "wont" are much more closed-down to me compared to "impossible".


Than it is /ʌ/. /ɑ/ is more open than /ʌ/. In actual fact /ɑ/ is in most cases further back because the predominant realization of /ʌ/ is more central, towards /ɐ/ or sometimes even towards /ə/. The chart here is quite helpful.


----------



## JamesM

berndf said:


> Than it is /ʌ/. /ɑ/ is more open than /ʌ/. In actual fact /ɑ/ is in most cases further back because the predominant realization of /ʌ/ is more central, towards /ɐ/ or simetimes even towards /ə/. The chart here is quite helpful.



Hmmm... according to that chart's recordings, I think I'm closer to  /ɑ/ than /ʌ/ in "want".  the /ʌ/ sound seems more like a Texas accent to me.


----------



## ribran

brian said:


> What does _it_ refer to?



The vowel.


----------



## ribran

JamesM said:


> Hmmm... according to that chart's recordings, I think I'm closer to  /ɑ/ than /ʌ/ in "want".  the /ʌ/ sound seems more like a Texas accent to me.



I have /ɑ/ for all of them.


----------



## brian

ribran said:


> The vowel.



In which word? I'm really confused. I thought we concluded that the vowel in _want/wont_ is generally [ʌ], or else [ɑ] (in careful/elevated speech), and James agreed. So why did you ask what vowel, other than those two, James has?

I'm lost.


----------



## ribran

brian said:


> In which word? I'm really confused. I thought we concluded that the vowel in _want/wont_ is generally [ʌ], or else [ɑ] (in careful/elevated speech), and James agreed. So why did you ask what vowel, other than those two, James has?
> 
> I'm lost.



Sorry for not being clearer in my earlier post.

You seemed to suggest that the vowel you used for _want_ was never [ɑ], which you said you used in _wont_, but only in careful speech. 

I nearly always use [ɑ] for both words.


----------



## JamesM

Sometimes I wish we had a way of referring to our own recordings of these words.  We could probably cut out half the posts on this thread.


----------



## berndf

JamesM said:


> Hmmm... according to that chart's recordings, I think I'm closer to  /ɑ/ than /ʌ/ in "want".  the /ʌ/ sound seems more like a Texas accent to me.


Yes. As I said, the realization of /ʌ/ is usually [ɐ] (beware of the difference between // and []). It was Jones who defined /ʌ/ as the "name" of the phoneme reflecting predominant late 19th century RP usage. He wrote that his own /ʌ/ was already markedly more central.

Most phoneticist say that /ʌ/ has as far as vowel quality is concerned has merged with /ə/, the distinguishing mark of /ə/ being its "weaker" pronunciation. I.e. the realization of /ʌ/ "floats" in the triangle of [ɐ], [ə] and [ʌ] (which is sometimes confusing for a speaker of a language with phonemic distinction between /ɐ/ and /ə/ like me).


----------



## AmEStudent

berndf said:


> Most phoneticist say that /ʌ/ has as far as vowel quality is concerned has merged with /ə/, the distinguishing mark of /ə/ being its "weaker" pronunciation. I.e. the realization of /ʌ/ "floats" in the triangle of [ɐ], [ə] and [ʌ] (which is sometimes confusing for a speaker of a language with phonemic distinction between /ɐ/ and /ə/ like me).



That's true, in British English and California it's usually [ɐ]; in Texas, Ohio and some Southern states [ɜ ̠], sometimes [ɘ]; in the Inland North and AAVE [ʌ̞]; for the rest is usually [ʌ̈].

Phonemic transcriptions are inaccurate.


----------



## berndf

AmEStudent said:


> Phonemic transcriptions are inaccurate.


They server a different purpose: Describing which distinctions are ignored in word recognition in a language is as important as knowing which exist.


----------



## AmEStudent

berndf said:


> They server a different purpose: Describing which distinctions are ignored in word recognition in a language is as important as knowing which exist.



Yes but using IPA symbols, which represent specific vowels, is misleading.


----------



## panjandrum

This thread is rambling without any sign of being useful.
It has therefore been closed.


----------

