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

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.