Bad-lad split

The bad-lad split is a phonemic split of the Early Modern English short vowel phoneme {{IPA|/æ/}} into a short {{IPA|/æ/}} and a long {{IPA|/æ?/}}. This split is found in some varieties of English English and Australian English in which bad (with long {{IPA|}}) and lad (with short {{IPA|}}) do not rhyme. (Wells 1982: 288?89, 596; Horvath and Horvath 2001; Leitner 2004).

Related Topics:
Phonemic split - Vowel - English English - Australian English

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The phoneme {{IPA|/æ/}} is regularly lengthened to {{IPA|/æ?/}} when it comes before a {{IPA|/m/}}, {{IPA|/n/}}, {{IPA|/g/}} within the same syllable. It is furthermore lengthened in the adjectives bad, sad, glad and mad; family also always has a long vowel, regardless of whether it is is pronounced as two or three syllables. Some speakers also lengthen it before {{IPA|/l/}} and {{IPA|/d?/}}. Lengthening is prohibited in the past tense of irregular verbs and function words and in modern contractions of polysyllabic words where the /æ/ was in an open syllable. Lengthening is not stopped by the addition of word-level suffixes.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Note that British dialects with the bad-lad split have instead trap-bath split in many words with an {{IPA|/m/}} or {{IPA|/n/}} following the original {{IPA|/æ/}}. In this circumstance, Australian speakers usually (but not universally) use {{IPA|/æ?/}}, except in the words ?aunt?, ?can?t? and ?shan?t?, which have broad {{IPA|/a?/}}.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Daniel Jones noted for RP that some speakers had a phonemic contrast between a long and a short {{IPA|/æ/}} which he wrote as {{IPA|/æ?/}} and {{IPA|/æ/}}, respectively. Thus, in An outline of English phonetics (1962, ninth edition, Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons) he noted that sad, bad generally had {{IPA|/æ?/}} but lad, pad had {{IPA|/æ/}}. In his pronouncing dictionary, he recorded several minimal pairs, for example bad {{IPA|/bæ?d/}}, bade {{IPA|/bæd/}} (also pronounced as {{IPA|/be?d/}}). He noted that for some speakers, jam actually represented two different pronunciations, one pronounced {{IPA|/d?æ?m/}} meaning 'fruit conserve', the other {{IPA|/d?æm/}} meaning 'crush, wedging'. Later editions of this dictionary edited by Alfred C. Gimson, dropped this distinction.

Related Topics:
Daniel Jones - Alfred C. Gimson

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Commonly also in these accents, can 'able to' is {{IPA|/kæn/}}, whereas the noun can 'tin' or the verb can 'to put into a tin' is {{IPA|/kæ?n/}}; this is similar to the situation found in æ-tensing in some varieties of American English. Australian speakers who use ?span? as the past tense of ?spin? also have a minimal pair between {{IPA|/spæ?n/}} ?to span? (the bridges {{IPA|/spæ?n/}} the river) and {{IPA|/spæn/}}, the past tense of ?spin? (the ball {{IPA|/spæn/}}). Various other minimal pairs can be created in the slang speech of social groups as {{IPA|/æg/}} meaning ?agriculture? vs {{IPA|/æ?g/}}, a La Trobe University?specific term referring to the part of the Uni known in full as the Agora.

Related Topics:
æ-tensing - American English - La Trobe University

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Apart from Jones and Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961; Springfield, Mass: G. & C. Merriam), where {{IPA|/æ?/}} (or rather, the American "tense æ") is noted as a secondary pronunciation and written with aa?, dictionary makers have never shown a difference between these varieties of the historical {{IPA|/æ/}}. In the 11th (2003) edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, which is derived from the Third unabridged, the distinction is discussed in an introductory section on pronunciation but ignored elsewhere in the text. The editors justify their decision by maintaining that "this distinction is sufficiently infrequent that the traditional practice of using a single symbol is followed in this book" (p. 34a).

Related Topics:
Webster's Third New International Dictionary - Pronunciation - Dictionary

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~