▁who ▁had ▁a ▁trap – b ath ▁split ▁( or ▁in ▁the ▁south ▁who ▁did ▁not ▁have ▁the ▁split ). ▁Gu pta ▁writes , ▁" There ▁is ▁no ▁just ification ▁for ▁the ▁claims ▁by ▁Well s ▁and ▁M ug gl estone ▁that ▁this ▁is ▁a ▁soci ol ingu istic ▁variable ▁in ▁the ▁north , ▁though ▁it ▁is ▁a ▁soci ol ingu istic ▁variable ▁on ▁the ▁areas ▁on ▁the ▁border ▁[ the ▁is og loss ▁between ▁north ▁and ▁south ] ". ▁ ▁In ▁some ▁West ▁Country ▁acc ents ▁of ▁English ▁English ▁where ▁the ▁v owel ▁in ▁trap ▁is ▁real ised ▁as ▁ ▁rather ▁than ▁, ▁the ▁v owel ▁in ▁the ▁bath ▁words ▁was ▁length ened ▁to ▁ ▁and ▁did ▁not ▁merge ▁with ▁the ▁ ▁of ▁father . ▁In ▁those ▁acc ents , ▁trap , ▁bath , ▁and ▁father ▁all ▁have ▁distinct ▁v ow els ▁, ▁, ▁and ▁.. ▁ ▁In ▁Corn wall , ▁Br istol ▁( as ▁well ▁as ▁towns ▁around ▁Br istol ), ▁and ▁in ▁many ▁forms ▁of ▁Scottish ▁English , ▁there ▁is ▁no ▁distinction ▁corresponding ▁to ▁the ▁R P ▁distinction ▁between ▁ ▁and ▁. ▁ ▁In ▁Rece ived ▁Pr on unci ation ▁ ▁In ▁Rece ived ▁Pr on unci ation ▁( R P ), ▁the ▁trap – b ath ▁split ▁did ▁not ▁happen ▁in ▁all ▁el ig ible ▁words . ▁It ▁is ▁hard ▁to ▁find ▁a ▁clear ▁rule ▁for ▁the ▁ones ▁that ▁changed . ▁R ough ly , ▁the ▁more ▁common ▁a ▁word ▁the ▁more ▁likely ▁that ▁the ▁change ▁from ▁flat ▁