Re: CHAT: Phonemic status of English interdentals

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