Re: [wEr\ Ar\ ju: fr6m] ?
| From: | D Tse <exponent@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Saturday, November 10, 2001, 7:46 |
|---|
<<
I can hear the difference most distinctly. It might help to
say 'gone' and
'born' which are [gQ:n] and [bO:n] for me and _definately_ don't rhyme
(the Macquarie gives /gO:n/ for 'gone', though, but when I was just
new to
the list something came up and an Adelaidean (now not active) said
that he
had a vowel he had in no other word in 'gone'. Of course, it might be
that
NSW doesn't have this feature). Another way is to compare an American
'/O/' (really [Q:]) with an Aussie. Or, of course, it could be that
Sydney's seen a Q>O or O:>Q: sound change...
Tristan
>>
<<
I can hear the difference most distinctly. It might help to
say 'gone' and
'born' which are [gQ:n] and [bO:n] for me and _definately_ don't rhyme
(the Macquarie gives /gO:n/ for 'gone', though, but when I was just
new to
the list something came up and an Adelaidean (now not active) said
that he
had a vowel he had in no other word in 'gone'. Of course, it might be
that
NSW doesn't have this feature). Another way is to compare an American
'/O/' (really [Q:]) with an Aussie. Or, of course, it could be that
Sydney's seen a Q>O or O:>Q: sound change...
Tristan
>>
No, heaven forbid it hasn't undergone that sound change. For some
strange reason I've been using [O] all along when I meant [Q]. In
fact, I always thought that gone and born contained [O] and [o]
respectively.
In that case, [o] must sound rather closed indeed...
Imperative
Replies