Re: CHAT: Phonemic status of English interdentals

Tristan wrote, quoting myself:

> >I don't understand the rationale behind your choice of symbols. If [8u]
> >is supposed to represent the diphthong in "ode", then surely [3\}] is
> >a better transcription). [8] being higher than schwa and [3\] being
> >lower, but both being central rounded vowels. I use [8] to denote the
> >vowel in "bird".
>
> You could be right. I use [8:] to denote the vowel in 'bird'. The first
> element of the vowel is almost a rounded backish [@] and so neither
> really closer to [8] nor [3\], so I use [8] for simplicity. I think. I
> might actually be horribly wrong. Can argue simplicity anyway, because I
> wasn't being especially narrow in my transcription? (I used [u] to
> indicate a vowel closer to [}], after all.)
An American, who said "oh" [ou], once remarked that to his ears the
Australian "oh" sounded like [OI] ...!

> >And there is a minimal pair - ode [3\}d] vs old [Oud], unless you
> >speak a dialect in which /l/ is not reduced to [u] in this position.
>
> And indeed I don't. That is, I pronounce /l/ in that position as a nice
> and dark /l/, but an /l/ nevertheless.
This would be totally unheard of in Adelaide, where [u] is a far more
common realisation of /l/ than is [5].

Incidentally I've never understood the description of dark /l/ being
palatised. To me, the primary difference between light and dark /l/
(taking the word 'lull' = [la5] as an example) is that in light /l/
the tongue is more spread (the tip running roughly over a line from
one canine to the other) whereas in dark /l/ the tongue is more
tubular. The palatal region has nothing to do with it!

BTW, of course the vowel in 'lull' (and many other words) can be just
as easily transcribed as either [a] or [6], as it is low like [a] and
central like [6] (not that I've ever been certain how to articulate
cardinal [a] as opposed to [6_o]). The [a] transcription seems more
traditional, but I'll bring to your attention that a higher central
vowel is allophonic with it, as in, "I'm just about there". The word
"just" is the only example I can think of that can be reduced from
[dZast] to something akin to [dZ@st] or even [dZs=t] even when
stressed.

Adrian.

Reply