Re: THEORY: Ray on ambisyllabicity

Adrian Morgan:
> And Rosta wrote, quoting myself and respectively humself:
>
> > > > I say ['hOU5li] for _wholly_ (and ['hOUli] for _holy_, but that's
> > > > the Australian in my accent)
> > >
> > > I think I say /hOuli/ for _wholly_ and /hoUli/ for _holy_, noting that
> > > /o/ is not [o].
Sorry: I failed to notice or register the point you were making. For no
good reason I read you as saying the words sounded identical. Now that I've
read you correctly, can you clarify how /Ou/ and /oU/ are pronounced, and
which other words have these diphthongs. For example, does /Ou/ ever
occur not before /l/?

> > Some Australians seem not to ever have special allophones of the GO and
> > TOO vowels before /l/, while others [...] have the allophone always
> > before /l/.
>
> Not sure what this refers to.
          "too"     "tool"      "go"    "goal"
Lect A    [t+u]     [t+ul]      [g@+]   [g@+l]
Lect B    [t+ul]    [tul]       [g@+]   [gOul]

without worrying about my crap ascii transcriptions, the point is that it
is my impression that some Australians have phonetically the same vowel
in "too" and "tool" and in "go" and "goal", while other Australians
don't.

> Of course, one of the key differences between Eastern dialects and the
> rest is that for non-easterners like me, there's a phonetic constraint
> that no syllable can end in [Ul]. In the East, no such constraint exists.
Tell me more.

--And.