Re: USAGE: THEORY/USAGE: RE: [CONLANG] A discourse on Phonemics (was: Re: E and e (was: A break

Roger:
> Tristan wrote:
>
> >And Rosta wrote:
> >
> > > As for the (immaterial, I think) question "has > Aust. phonemicized
> > > length in other, non-r, environments?", try _foot:fought_
> >
> >/fUt/:/fO:t/? Nothing alike!
>
>
> Jumping in temporarily:  that's what I thought, too.  How about:
>
> rot :  wrought
> cot : caught ( and _court_??)
> sot : sought (sort???)
> not : nought/naught (north???)
> et al.
I don't think they work for AusE, but they do work for e.g. some
accents of the N of England. I think I may have previously
posted on this list some minimal pairs differing by length alond
that work for my accent: or ones similar to it:

bed : bared
bid : beard
bud : bird
foot : fought
bade : bad
hot : heart

However, the coincidence of vowel quality in these pairs is just
that, a coincidence, and there are no grounds for seeing the
vowels as organized into these pairs at a phonological level.

--And.

Reply