Re: THEORY: Ray on ambisyllabicity

And Rosta wrote, quoting myself:

> The vowel phoneme in _book_ is conventionally represented with /U/ and
> that in _boot_ with /u:/, but there may be different local conventions
> prevailing in Australian universities,
No, I've never studied local conventions - I just do my best to pick
things up on this list in the absence of a sound card :-)

> I don't hear enough Aus E to have a sense of what's the norm.
And there's some variety at all levels, i.e. regional, social and
personal.

At one point last year I emailed people here at Flinders who should have
been able to give me definitive information on what sounds I really use,
but I did not get a reply. I have no computer with both internet and
sound card, so online research is not the solution. I'm open to
suggestions. I'd be prepared to pay the cost of an international phone
call for definitive guidance.

> across the board or in certain environments. I hadn't noticed this before
> in Australians of my acquaintance (who would have [a:] in _chance_), most
> of whom are middle class from NSW.
The percentage of people who use [&] is higher in the Eastern states than
elsewhere. AFAIK In no region is it universal, however.

> > Near the bottom of your message, which I answered first, you tell me that
> > I've had [u]/[U] confused all this time and that my belief that _book_ is
> > [buk] and _boot_ is [bUt] is incorrect.
>
> I wonder whether you're confusing phonetic representation with phonemic
> representation? /bUk/ and /bu:t/ are the norms I'm aware of for phonemic
> representation. For phonetic representation of Aus E, [bUt] seems dead
> wrong, but [buk] seems in the right ballpark, tho I'd prefer [bok].
I understand [U] to be the very rounded vowel as in _who are you_
(hU a: jU); lips very constrained and pointing forward, back of tongue
raised.

I understand [u] to be one of a family of vowels related to the consonant
[w] but with the lips a bit looser, e.g. _woof!_ [wuf].

I understand [o] to be a more poetic sound, the realisation of _oh_ in
those dialects (e.g Irish English) in which the word is a vowel.

> I tentatively -- and with no disrespect and with every desire not to be
> thought to sound patronizing -- reckon you've a very good ear, but have
> made the common mistake of assuming that standard symbolizations of
> phonemes accurately represent the phones that realize the phonemes.
I understand that phonetic transcription is a more 'pedantic' description
of speech, taking into account all the features that a speaker is not
aware of, such as how sounds are unconsciously modified by the practical
realities of moving the mouth.

Whereas phonemic transcription captures only the sounds that actually
play a part in communication, using the same symbol for two sounds that
have identical 'information content' in the particular language. The
symbol used in a phonemic transcription is, presumably, its most common
phonetic realisation.

When I want to accurately describe how I pronounce a word with regard to
the important sounds, but I don't want to have to ask myself pedantic
questions (like whether stops are aspirated or not), I use phonemic
transcription.

--
web.       | Here and there I like to preserve a few islands of sanity
netyp.com/ | within the vast sea of absurdity which is my mind.
member/    | After all, you can't survive as an eight foot tall
dragon     | flesh eating dragon if you've got no concept of reality.