Re: Hi there & Blitherings

Roger Mills wrote, quoting myself:

> >The things that most stand out about typical American speech to an
> >Australian are, I think:
> >
> > - it being rhotic;
> > - "pot" being unrounded (example);
> > - "new" not having a [j] in it (example);
> > - "man" being [m{@n] rather than [m{n] (example)
>
> No argument with the first three; "man" [m{@n] however would be
> better transcribed to show that the [@] is merely a glide,
I imagine many Americans would be surprised at how much this feature
stands out to foreigners - it really is one of the most striking
features :-)

In general Americans put more schwa-glides /before/ consonants while
Australians, to varying degrees, put more schwa-glides /after/
consonants. That's undoubtably where the "Australian /}/ is /@}/"
notion comes from, which isn't true in the sense of being a diphthong,
but it does exist as a glide depending on three factors:

  (a) previous consonant;
  (b) social dialect;
  (c) tone (including how relaxed the speaker is).

Thus if I'm very relaxed and possibly a little tired in a comfortable
lounge chair, I'll use significantly more on-glides than I will, for
example, at the kitchen table, especially after consonants like [m].
But even then I won't use the much more prominent on-glides that
characterise speakers of certain social dialects in this country.

Adrian.