Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

USAGE: Adrian's vowel disorder (was: RE: [i:]=[ij]? (was Re: Pronouncing "Boreanesia"))

From:And Rosta <a.rosta@...>
Date:Sunday, November 5, 2000, 0:30
Adrian (to Kristian):
> OK, since there is definately a difference other than length between the > vowel in school/cool/fool/tool versus could/book/wool/woman, I shall > henceforth use [w:] for the former and [u] for the latter. Any > objections?
If you like you can send me a cassette of your vowels (Dept of Cultural Studies, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK) & I'll have a listen. On a broad transcription [u] seems the best symbolization for both vowels _fool_ and _foot_ in Aus E. But I think the _foot_ vowel is a little lower than cardinal [u]. As for _fool_, my mother has something a bit fronter than cardinal [u] here, but she's been living in England for almost 40 years. OTOH, the main accents she'd have been influenced by in England have proper [u] in _fool_, so her fronter vowel is likely an Aus retention. I forget what the current standard IPA diacritics for centralization and lowering are (still the two dots above and the c-like hook below?), but you could use a <u> with a little -| beneath for _fool_ and a <u> with a little T beneath for _foot_ if you wanted to be narrow (and supposing I'd correctly identified your vowels).
> > I'm not sure what you mean by tightness. If you refering to > > aperture, then I'd say that I haven't detected any difference in > > aperture between these two vowel sounds. Perhaps its a dialectal > > thing. > > Here's a minimal pair for you: 'could' [kud] vs 'cooled' [kw:ld].
Unfortunately I don't think you can get a true minimal pair for these sounds, because to get the _fool_ vowel the /l/ has to be there. If for you the _full_ vowel is the same as the _foot_ vowel, then _full_/_fool_ could be a minimal pair.
> > >> >> For instance, words like "no/know" get rendered as > > >> >> [no-y]. > > I really want to hear [y] and [U] next to each other because I'm quite > convinced that I *cannot* tell the difference between Australian /u/ and > that of most other English dialects I've heard. But I agree with you that > the vowel is fronted if I understand the term correctly. > > Can you name other English dialects in which [y] is used?
In Central Lancashire as realization of /u:/ after /j/, e.g. in _cure_. But I doubt that information's going to be of help to you.
> > >> Phoneme Australian American > > >> /u/ [u-y] [Uw]~[u:] > > >> /U/ [u] [U] > > >> /o/ [o-y] [ow] > > >> (where: [u-] and [o-] are centralized vowels) > > > > No... more like _moon_, _GOOD_, and _code_. > > > > >The biggest problem I have with the above is that you've got > > >/u/ as a diphthong. Well, depending on what the previous > > >consonant is, there might indeed be a neutral vowel ([@] > > >AFAICT) emitted whilst the mouth moves from the consonant to > > >the /u/. For a consonant like 'm' from which the lips must > > >first move up before they move out, this is particularly > > >likely. But fundamentally, the Australian /u/ is not a > > >diphthong. > > > > Perhaps its a dialectal thing? I've always heard a diphthong there. > > Definately no diphthong. One thing worth mentioning: the more 'educated' > the social dialect, the less prominent the transitional schwa > that sometimes appears before certain vowels. In 'broad' Australian > dialects, it's *very* prominent. > > For now, I'll accept: > > /u/ [y:]~[U:]
If for you it's definitely not a diphthong, then my money'd be on _moon_ having [u-], barred-u, central high round. [U:] is totally wrong. --And.