Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: CHAT: Phonemic status of English interdentals

From:Tristan <kesuari@...>
Date:Wednesday, October 9, 2002, 8:47
Josh Roth wrote:

>In a message dated 10/9/02 3:23:56 AM, kesuari@YAHOO.COM.AU writes: > > > >>Josh Roth wrote: >> >> >> >>>In a message dated 10/9/02 12:56:52 AM, morg0072@FLINDERS.EDU.AU writes: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Tristan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Much easier to tell the difference between [&] and [&:] (which only >>>>>have one debatable minimal pair---can and can) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>1. "banner" (one who bans) vs "banner" (flag) >>>> >>>>2. "banning" (participle of ban) / "Banning" (surname of former South >>>> Australian premier. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>I also have "have" vs. "halve", which are on the same level as "can" and >>>"can". >>> >>> >>> >>Not for me; 'halve' is /ha:v/. >> >> > >Oh right... we're talking about different things I suppose, being in >Australia and New York. That's what happens when I write at 3 in the morning. >Well I guess I knew they were different, as the distinction is not for me is >not one of length but of quality - the latter examples for me have something >between [&] and [e@], for which there is no IPA symbol. I was just thinking >they were analogous (which I guess they are somewhat...), or you were >representing it a different way. >
Is the sound in question [E@] or something, then?... Or could you try representing it in words (higher, lower)/with diacritics? I was going on purely about the difference of length in the sounds. A well-established phonemic distinction of length in Melburnian* speech is /e/ (bed) vs /e:/ (bared). /a/ (hut) and /a:/ (heart) are likewise a long-short pair. /I@/ (beard) is trying to become /I:/; if it succeeds, it'll probably quite annoy /i:/ (which has both longish and shortish allophones, but these aren't as noticeable). *There is no O in 'Melburnian'; take a look in any Melburnian newspaper. This keeps Americans from saying horrible things like /mElbOrn/ and /mElbOrni@n/ for /m&lb@n/ and /m&(u/l)b8:ni@n/.
>>>Then there are more dubious ones like "shall" vs. "shale", "Val" >>>(short for Valerie) vs. "veil", "gal" vs. "gale", etc. >>> >>> >>> >>All those words with 'long A's' are /&i@l/ for me. However, I was >>reminded of another: L (name of the letter)/Elle vs Al. (And I guess >>that /&l/ < /el/ never gets lengthened to /&:l/ suggests something... >>unless you analyse [&l] as /el/, which doesn't explain why 'shall' and >>'shell' are homophones. Not that I know a lot about phonemes... I'm >>hoping to learn some more at Uni. Argh, a touch over a fortnight till >>the end of school; a month and a half till my last exam...) >> >> > >Well I'm not too familiar with your speech variety at all (I've only heard >Australian speech in some beer commercials I think!). Those two words are not >homophones for me though, the first is /S&l/ and the second /SEl/. >
Yes... A relatively recent change has moved (short) /el/ to /&l/ in all positions; it only effects Victorians aged under about 25 apparently. (Long /e:l/ is still /e:l/, though the only example I can think of off the top of my head is 'fairly', /fe:li/.)
>Are you in >a linguistics class now? We just started school about a month ago here ... I >guess everything is reversed. >
Nup, still in Year 12, the last year of secondary/high school. Our school year begins in January/February or March for Unis/TAFEs and finishes in November/December (Oct. for yr 12s. Dunno abt Unis/TAFEs). If all goes well with my exams, I hope to do either Arts or Arts/Comp. Sci., majoring in Linguistics. If I've completely stuffed up, I have no idea what I'll do.
>>Much more likely to merge into /f/ and /v/. Over on this side of >>Melbourne, you hear people talking of veir maffs... I guess these people >>are aware of the difference... >> >You may certainly be right. I however, never hear /f/ and /v/ for /T/ and >/D/, except in references to the speech of some Black people or >African-Americans (the second term is used more often, but the first seems to >me more accurate for what people MEAN when they say the second, as they are >not usually including Egyptian-American Arabs and South African-American >Whites, for example [not meaning to start a whole discussion or flamefest on >race or anything]). Of course, /f/ and /v/ may spread in the future, but for >now, the interdentals seem pretty secure here. >
Well... they're secure in some areas of Melbourne. Just a lot weaker in others. And will probably become less secure as time goes on... I can remember being taught (by my parents) how to say [T] and [D], so I must've been over 3 or 4 at the time (prior to that, I said 'fumb' and 'free' etc.) Tristan