Re: CHAT: Phonemic status of English interdentals

Adrian Morgan wrote:

>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] ...!
>
Yes, I've heard that before... If it helps, Americans sound really
stupid when saying [ou]. Too much backing of the first part and not
enough focus on the second.

>>>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!
>
I thought the dark L was supposed to be velarised and a very bright L
palatised?

>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.
>
I have never heard 'just' be pronounced anything but /dZas(t)/ in
stressed positions (but when unstressed, it's almost always /dZ@s/).

Tristan.

Reply