6

As you have probably seen the very recent question Why are “south” and “southern” pronounced with different vowels?

The only (excellent) answer suggests that it is because of "Trisyllabic Laxing". (explained there in detail)

My question is: if the so-called trisyllabic laxing shortened the vowel in "southern", why doesn't it shorten the vowels in "northern" and "eastern"?

They also have the suffix "ern" and they would also be three syllables words in Old English (like "southern" was).

  • North = /nɔːθ/

  • East = /iːst/

  • Northern = /ˈnɔː.ðən/

  • Eastern = /ˈiː.stən/

They have long vowels in their corresponding words "north" and "east" too. Is this irregular or there is an explanation for this?

  • Similarly with 'pronounce' and 'pronunciation' but the spelling is different too. – Weather Vane Nov 10 '20 at 11:58
  • @WeatherVane: Pronounce - pronunciation is the result of Trisyllabic Laxing. About the spelling: It's because the digraph ⟨ou⟩ doesn't often represent the /ʌ/ vowel in Modern English, but ⟨u⟩ does. So the O has been removed for that reason. Also see profound - profundity. – Void Nov 10 '20 at 12:05
  • North already has a short vowel, so it can't be "shortened". – Canadian Yankee Nov 10 '20 at 14:10
  • 1
    I spent more than two hours on tracing their roots and reading vowel shortenings/lengthenings but to no avail. :( I'll just add a comment and hope someone will come up with a good explanation. ///// 'North' is pronounced with a short vowel /ɔ/ in AmE (correct me if i'm wrong), but in BrE, it has a long version of the /ɔ/ vowel because of the deletion of r as BrE is non-rhotic (you lengthen the vowel after the deletion of r in other words too in BrE). 'North' had a short vowel in MidEng and Old Eng too. 'Northern' too had a short vowel in both MidEng and Old Eng, it's strange. [cont...] – Void Nov 10 '20 at 14:46
  • 1
    Both 'east' and 'eastern' had the vowel /æ͜ɑː/ in Old Eng. In Middle English, both had /ɛː/. And in ModEng, both have /iː/. /// 'Eastern' was trisyllabic in both MidEng and OE... I don't know what to make of it. I read several shortening and lengthening processes, but didn't come up with anything :( – Void Nov 10 '20 at 14:50
  • @Void I hesitate to quibble, because you know more about a lot of this than I do. However, I question your view that /ɔ/ is long in BrE because of r-deletion, since I suspect that most BrE speakers make no audible distinction between "law" and "lore", "caught" and "court", etc. IOW, if it was long due to r-deletion then wouldn't "caught", "lawn" etc have short vowels? I also suspect that the fact we write /ɔ/ short in AmE may just be a difference in traditional transatlantic preferences regarding length signs. – rjpond Dec 15 '20 at 22:20
  • ...Technically the length sign is superfluous because in a phonemic transcription it shouldn't be needed because English doesn't contrast short and long /ɔ/. But some early phoneticians had transcribed the short "o" of BrE "lot" as /ɔ/. There was a debate about whether that differed from "aw" primarily in length or primarily in quality, and the tradition arose of showing both distinctions rather than picking one. That's as I recall it, but could be wrong – rjpond Dec 15 '20 at 22:22
  • 1
    @rjpond: Good point! lore has a long vowel because r deletion,if the r had remained, it would've been a short vowel. Law has a long vowel too perhaps because it's an open syllable, and in open syllables, vowels were lengthened at some point. /// court has long vowel because of r deletion.... the long vowel in caught, night, knight etc is the result of compensatory lengthening triggered by the deletion of /x/ which was represented by the digraph gh. I suspect the long vowel in lawn is because of the vocalisation of the w. //// in lot, we have a short vowel because it's a closed syllable :) – Void Dec 16 '20 at 03:33

2 Answers2

4

The answer to this question is very complex if all details have to be included, but here's a short answer:

The only thing I notice about 'eastern' and 'northern' is that the first syllables of these words are closed syllables (have a consonant after the vowel in the same syllable); nor and eas and phonological processes like trisyllabic laxing and syncopation (loss of vowel) don't usually affect closed syllables. The first syllable of 'southern' is (and was) open syllable (/suː/), so it underwent Trisyllabic laxing.

Void
  • 18,058
  • 7
  • 75
  • 107
3

First of all, "trisyllabic laxing" is actually a controversial concept. The vowel alternations it is meant to explain clearly exist, but a number of phonologists think that it is not a correct description of either the origins of the vowel alternations in the relevant words, or the synchronic rule governing such vowel alternations (if the alternations are in fact governed by a rule).

Setting that aside, northern is easier to explain. The phonetically long vowel /ɔː/ here historically derives from a sequence of a short vowel + /r/ plus a consonant. This kind of long vowel regularly does not show trisyllabic laxing. There are many examples that show the absence of laxing/shortening, such as enormity, cortical, farcial, vertical, and various words ending in -ersity or -ernity.

The contrast between eastern and southern is not regular as far as I know. I don't know how it can adequately be explained.

sumelic
  • 7,177
  • 2
  • 19
  • 31