Re: "write him" was Re: More questions

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Paul Bennett wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:32:39 -0500, Tristan McLeay <zsau@...>
> wrote:
>
> > The thing I'm more concerned about: in dialects that use 'faucet' and
> > distinguish short o from au (i.e. say bot and bought differently), which
> > vowel does faucet have? When we happen to make use of the word, generally
> > when talking about American words, we use a short o.
>
> My experience tells me something like /fAsIt/ in the local accent (but it's
> not a British /A/) and thus /fQsIt/ in mine, but my inner monologue insists
> on /fOsIt/ when it sees the word detached from context.
>
> > There are three
> > possible explanations for it: it's irregular and pronounced with a short
> > o
> > everywhere; as in loss or caustic,
>
> I have /lQs/ and /kOstIk/ -- *NB* not /kO:stIk/ which is only produced in
> over-careful speech.
>
> Actually, the combining form of /kOstIk/ is indeed /kQstIk/ (or maybe even
> /kQst1k/ ?) as in /kQstIk soud@/, but the non-compund form is pretty
> certainly /kOstIk/
>
> > the /o:s/ became /Os/; it has been
> > borrowed from American English, whose au sounds almost identical to our
> > short o (e.g. I had to translate from American English /stOk/ to AusE
> > /sto:k/---stalk---last night for my brother while watching tv, because
> > 'stock' didn't make sense in context).
>
> FWIW, I think you are writing /o/ where /Q/ is meant, but AusE might really
> be that weird, so I sha'n't insist.
Actually, AusE really is that weird. And it isn't all that weird: some of
it is comparable with the GVS, frex. In the back, it's simply:
u: -> i\u\                 (except before l)
U > u
ou > (something different) (except before l, when it's Ou)
O: > o:                    (except before l, when it's higher almost to
                           [U:]'s height, and in the word 'gone' [gO:n]
Q > O                      (it's possible this change reflects the absence
                           of a change, I think it was 19th C. to use
                           /O/?---I've seen something criticising the
                           lowering).

The change of /ou/ is shared with S. E.  English (incl. the diff pr.
before l), though I think they went further than us. The change of /u:/ is
shared with some dialects of AmE at least, though our exact quality
parrallels the the change to our /i:/ (> [@i]). /U@/ (pure, sure) behaves
funnily, I think becomeing disyllabic after /j/ and [o:] elsewhere, except
in your (when it became [o:]) and some other words like tour (when it
became disyllabic). (/O@/ has long since merged with O:>o:.)

The front reflects the back, though things aren't quite as high (e.g. /e/
< /E/ is higher than in RP, but not actually as high as [e]-proper); ei >
&i; and e@ is a monophthong ([e:]) while I@ is only a diphthong phrase-
finally.

Of the central vowels, /V/ and /A:/ form a pair distinguished by length
somewhat further front: /a/ and /a:/ (phonetically they may not reach
[a]-proper). /3:/ (ur) migrated upwards with /e/ and /o:/, forwards with
/A:/, and became rounded, and lies in between [2:] and [8:].

Of the remaining diphothngs, /Oi/ followed /O/ and is now [oi], /ai/ has a
backer origin, and /au/ is /&u\/.

When I denote a sound as long, it is phonemically so; any phonetic change
of quality, unless shown by a change in character, is purely phonetic.

(The diphthongs ending in @ originate from tense vowels before r, and is
inherited from our non-rhotic English ancestors, hence air is [e:].)

The primary differences between Australian and New Zealand English, and I
point these out because they *do* exist, is that NZ front vowels are even
higher than ours, with /&/ being closer to [e], /e/ to [I], and /I/ is
either [I\] or [@] or something of the sort. /3:/ is actually [2:]. /e@/
and /I@/ have merged, generally on [I@], so air and ear are homonyms.

I'm sure this is all in the archives.

--
Tristan