# Pronunciation of "o", "ó" and "ô"



## Archaicos

Another phonetic confusion I have is this...

I have 3 dictionaries (Oxford, Collins, Larousse) that describe Brazilian pronunciation on their first pages. I also use some online resources (thefreedictionary.com, forvo.com) to look things up or just listen to the pronunciation.

Where the pronunciation (Brazilian Portuguese) is indicated in writing, it generally goes something like this:

-o (final) : livr*o*
ó [ɔ]: *ó*leo as in sh*o*p
ô [o]: col*ô*nia as in p*o*le
o (unstressed) [o]: l*o*c*o*m*o*tiva as in p*o*le
o (stressed) [ɔ]: l*o*ja as in sh*o*p or [o]: gl*o*bo as in p*o*le

So, this implies that "o" (that has no graphic accent over it) has two different pronunciations (besides , of course):
1. diphthongized [o]: l*o*c*o*m*o*tiva, gl*o*bo as in p*o*le
2. monophthong [ɔ]: l*o*ja as in sh*o*p

Now, the confusion comes from the fact that I do not hear this diphthongized o in the aforementioned and many other words at forvo.com.
To me all these o's sound more or less the same, as monophthongs.

Are the dictionaries wrong or outdated? Or do they cover a different dialect of Brazilian Portuguese than that demonstrated at forvo? Or am I deaf? 

Please help as I can't get my head around this.

*Update*: I think there's a plausible explanation of the phenomenon. The dictionary authors likely tried to approximate the Portuguese "o" (a monophthong) with American English "o"  (a diphthong, [əu]/[əʊ]) and weren't very elaborate, which made their pronunciation guide confusing.


----------



## Ariel Knightly

Archaicos said:


> Another phonetic confusion I have is this...
> 
> I have 3 dictionaries (Oxford, Collins, Larousse) that describe Brazilian pronunciation on their first pages. I also use some online resources (thefreedictionary.com, forvo.com) to look things up or just listen to the pronunciation.
> 
> Where the pronunciation (Brazilian Portuguese) is indicated in writing, it generally goes something like this:
> 
> -o (final) : livr*o*
> ó [ɔ]: *ó*leo as in sh*o*p
> ô [o]: col*ô*nia as in p*o*le
> o (unstressed) [o]: l*o*c*o*m*o*tiva as in p*o*le
> o (stressed) [ɔ]: l*o*ja as in sh*o*p or [o]: gl*o*bo as in p*o*le
> 
> So, this implies that "o" (that has no graphic accent over it) has two different pronunciations (besides , of course):
> 1. diphthongized [o]: l*o*c*o*m*o*tiva, gl*o*bo as in p*o*le
> 2. monophthong [ɔ]: l*o*ja as in sh*o*p
> 
> Now, the confusion comes from the fact that I do not hear this diphthongized o in the aforementioned and many other words at forvo.com.
> To me all these o's sound more or less the same, as monophthongs.
> 
> *Are the dictionaries wrong or outdated?* Or do they cover a different dialect of Brazilian Portuguese than that demonstrated at forvo? Or am I deaf?
> 
> Please help as I can't get my head around this.



If your dictionaries say anything about diphthongs, they're just wrong. All those sounds are monothongs. It's true that you have 3 different ways to pronoune the letter _o_, but none of them is a diphthong, which is always represented in writing.

(1) b*o*la - similar to _o_ in _off_
(2) ded*o* - similar to _oo_ in _book_
(3) c*o*co - slightly similar to _o_ in _go_

In (3) I said "slightly similar" because, unlike English, in Portuguese you have a monothong, not a diphthong. So, while _o _in_ go _has two vowels in its pronunciation -- [o] + [w] --, _o_ in _c*o*co_ is simply [o].


----------



## Nonstar

The only diphtongized "o" I know is the one from Rio, in the word _doze_ (douze).


----------



## Ariel Knightly

Nonstar said:


> The only diphtongized "o" I know is the one from Rio, in the word _doze_ (douze).


Yes, some (uneducated) people pronounce it this way. It may have something to do with hypercorrection...


----------



## Macunaíma

None of the above "o" sounds are diphthongs, as Ariel Knightly has explained, but they are not more or less the same either. In the final position, the "o" is always reduced to a "u" sound; when in the middle of the word, it can be either open, closed or nasal (you know the sound is nasal when "o" is followed by the letters "m" or "n" in the same syllable).

Olho (eye): first "o" is closed, second "o" reduced to "u"
Olhos (eyes): first "o" open, second reduced

porto (port): first "o" closed, second reduced
portos (ports): first "o" open, second reduced
porta (door): first "o" open, second reduced

ovo (egg): first "o" closed, second reduced
ovos (eggs): first "o" open, second reduced

ônibus (bus): nasal "o"
computador (computer): first "o" nasal, second "o" closed


----------



## Archaicos

Ariel Knightly said:


> If your dictionaries say anything about diphthongs, they're just wrong. All those sounds are monothongs. It's true that you have 3 different ways to pronoune the letter _o_, but none of them is a diphthong, which is always represented in writing.



Wow, unbelievable.

The Oxford dictionary claims to be "most trusted" and "comprehensive reference work" (yet I've found typos and mistakes other than this in it),

Larousse -- "ideal for all your language needs" and "providing fast and practical solutions to the various problems encountered when reading Portuguese" (yet its pronunciation guide lacks basic details, contained in the other too),

Collins -- "fully revised", "authoritative" and "ideal for home/school/office".

How come all three of them are so misleading? Is there any other Portuguese or any other Brazil the authors had in mind or did they never learn the language in the first place?

Btw, do you know a better dictionary that is actually correct? And others to stay away from?


----------



## Archaicos

Macunaíma said:


> None of the above "o" sounds are diphthongs, as Ariel Knightly has explained, but they are not more or less the same either. In the final position, the "o" is always reduced to a "u" sound; when in the middle of the word, it can be either open, closed or nasal (you know the sound is nasal when "o" is followed by the letters "m" or "n" in the same sillable).
> 
> Olho (eye): first "o" is closed, second "o" reduced to "u"
> Olhos (eyes): first "o" open, second reduced
> 
> porto (port): first "o" closed, second reduced
> portos (ports): first "o" open, second reduced
> porta (door): first "o" open, second reduced
> 
> ovo (egg): first "o" closed, second reduced
> ovos (eggs): first "o" open, second reduced
> 
> ônibus (bus): nasal "o"
> computador (computer): first "o" nasal, second "o" closed



I already know about the "u" sound at the end and nasalization.
I'm trying to understand the pronunciation basics from the various incomplete and misleading sources. I don't know why it's that way with Portuguese.
It's not that obscure/rare of a language with few speakers...

Regarding the open/closed, especially in your examples:
- is that something that occurs naturally with speech due to the word length in terms of syllables/sounds?
- is there a way to figure out which is which based on the overall spelling, word form and knowledge of stress location?
- how often is it important to make this distinction? I know, for example, that *avó *and *avô* mean different things and are pronounced differently, but the spelling clearly marks this distinction in these words, while in the words from your examples, there's nothing obvious at first glance and I think there're no other words  to confuse *p*rt@(s)* and **vo(s)* with due to a different pronunciation of o.


----------



## anaczz

There are no way to recognize the pronunciation by the spelling.
You see:
posto (position, placed): first "o" closed
posto (I post): first o open
poste (pole): "o" open
corte (cut): "o" open
corte (court): "o" closed
You actualy have to know the pronunciation.


----------



## Archaicos

anaczz said:


> There are no way to recognize the pronunciation by the spelling.
> posto (position, placed): first "o" closed
> poste (pole): "o" open
> corte (cut): "o" open
> corte (court): "o" closed
> You actualy have to know the pronunciation.



Nice. Like English.  Good example, thanks.


----------



## Macunaíma

Archaicos said:


> Regarding the open/closed, especially in your examples:
> - is that something that occurs naturally with speech due to the word length in terms of syllables/sounds?
> - is there a way to figure out which is which based on the overall spelling, word form and knowledge of stress location?
> - how often is it important to make this distinction? I know, for example, that *avó *and *avô* mean different things and are pronounced differently, but the spelling clearly marks this distinction in these words, while in the words from your examples, there's nothing obvious at first glance and I think there're no other words to confuse *p*rt@(s)* and **vo(s)* with due to a different pronunciation of o.


 
In most cases, there's no telling if the o is open or closed from the spelling, you have to learn it on a case-by-case basis. And, yes, unfortunately it's very important to get the open/closed distinction correctly if you don't want to sound odd, even if it's usually not an obstacle to understanding. As a rule of thumb, words in which the o is closed tend to have open o's in their plural forms:

olho (closed) - olhos (open)
aeroporto (closed) - aeroportos (open)

But the bad news is that there are exceptions:

cachorro (closed) - cachorros (closed)
repolho (closed) - repolhos (closed)


----------



## Ariel Knightly

Archaicos said:


> Wow, unbelievable.
> 
> The Oxford dictionary claims to be "most trusted" and "comprehensive reference work" (yet I've found typos and mistakes other than this in it),
> 
> Larousse -- "ideal for all your language needs" and "providing fast and practical solutions to the various problems encountered when reading Portuguese" (yet its pronunciation guide lacks basic details, contained in the other too),
> 
> Collins -- "fully revised", "authoritative" and "ideal for home/school/office".
> 
> How come all three of them are so misleading? Is there any other Portuguese or any other Brazil the authors had in mind or did they never learn the language in the first place?
> 
> Btw, do you know a better dictionary that is actually correct? And others to stay away from?


To me, your dictionaries are good enough. Vowels are a complex issue. There's no such thing as a perfect match when we talk about vowels; that's why dictionaries -- for pedagogical reasons -- usually adopt expressions like "similar to" in their phonetic explanations. For example, we could use the same IPA symbol _ for both ap*i*to and nois*y*; but it doesn't mean that those sounds are exactly identical. They're close enough to share the same IPA symbol, but the American English phone is normally a little bit higher than the Brazilian Portuguese one. Among all American English vowels, [oʊ] is the closest sound to the Brazilian Portuguese [o].

You can compare those vowels here._


----------



## anaczz

I agree with Ariel, I think this is the closest sound for English speakers.
For Russian speakers I think we can say:
c*o*co: tak kak "c*o*k"
l*o*ja: tak kak "okn*o*"


----------



## Archaicos

Ariel Knightly said:


> To me, your dictionaries are good enough. Vowels are a complex issue. There's no such thing as a perfect match when we talk about vowels; that's why dictionaries -- for pedagogical reasons -- usually adopt expressions like "similar to" in their phonetic explanations. For example, we could use the same IPA symbol _ for both ap*i*to and nois*y*; but it doesn't mean that those sounds are exactly identical. They're close enough to share the same IPA symbol, but the American English phone is normally a little bit higher than the Brazilian Portuguese one. Among all American English vowels, [oʊ] is the closest sound to the Brazilian Portuguese [o].
> 
> You can compare those vowels here._


_

They didn't do a diligent job in writing "similar to"/"as in"/etc. They should've added something like "but there's no [ʊ] at the end of this [oʊ]" or reiterated that this sound isn't diphthongized unlike misleadingly suggested by their examples of pole and local.
Thanks. Nice article, btw (not that I didn't know those issues described in it since speakers of Russian also face the same problems when learning English._


----------



## Archaicos

anaczz said:


> I agree with Ariel, I think this is the closest sound for English speakers.
> For Russian speakers I think we can say:
> c*o*co: tak kak "c*o*k"
> l*o*ja: tak kak "okn*o*"


Right, thanks.


----------



## Outsider

Archaicos said:


> Regarding the open/closed, especially in your examples:
> - is that something that occurs naturally with speech due to the word length in terms of syllables/sounds?
> - is there a way to figure out which is which based on the overall spelling, word form and knowledge of stress location?
> - how often is it important to make this distinction? I know, for example, that *avó *and *avô* mean different things and are pronounced differently, but the spelling clearly marks this distinction in these words, while in the words from your examples, there's nothing obvious at first glance and I think there're no other words  to confuse *p*rt@(s)* and **vo(s)* with due to a different pronunciation of o.


There are some patterns that tend to repeat (for example, vowels are generally close when they're nasal), but no universal rules. The reasons for the different pronunciations go back to Latin (sometimes with irregularities along the way).

The good news:

Most times, it won't make a difference if you pronounce a vowel close instead of open, or vice-versa. Also, when the difference does matter, the vowel in question is always stressed. There are a handful of word pairs you should make an effort to distinguish, like _avô/avó_. Unfortunately, not all of them are differentiated in writing. By the way, the same kind of thing happens with _é/ê/e_.


----------



## Chriszinho85

These vowel changes were probably the hardest thing for me to learn, and even to this day I have some problems with it!  I remember starting a similar thread which also may be of help.  You can take a look at it here:

Changes in vowel sounds


Chris


----------



## jpyvr

As a non-native speaker of Portuguese, I continue to have problems with all the ways to pronounce "o" in that language. I know the difference in meaning and pronunciation between avô and avó, but whenever I want to pronounce either word, I have to stop, think, and then continue. It has not become "naturalized" in my spoken Portuguese (although in written Portuguese, it's quite simple.)

In the city I live in, Fortaleza, there is an even more complicated situation with a single spelling (but different accents) that results in three pronunciations and meanings, one of which is quite rude. The word, unaccented, is coco. Along side this is the vulgar cocô, and here in Fortaleza we have a river and a park named Cocó. I don't have a problem with the differentiating the unaccented coco, but believe me, I'm very careful when I pronounce the name of the park! I stop, think twice, confirm silently, and then carefully proceed. All to avoid those giggles and snickers from native Brazilian friends if I err.


----------



## GOODVIEW

> The only diphtongized "o" I know is the one from Rio, in the word _doze_ (douze).


 
Very good! 

Usually the same people that say _cisn*ei*_for _cisne._


----------

