Re: USAGE: Kristian on Adrian's vowel disorder (was: RE: [i:]=[ij]?

> >>     Phoneme     RP English
> >>       /u/          [u:]
> >>       /U/          [U]
> >>       /o/          [@U]
> >
> >[u] for /u/ except before /l/ sounds very posh,
> >old-fashioned and actory (= 'Conservative RP'). Better is
> >[u-].
>
> Aha!! This explains why Adrian doesn't hear the difference
> between Australian and British /u/.
So this means that RP /u/ is [u] before /l/ and [u-]
otherwise? Which could be identical to the (non-NSW)
Australian pattern?

> >>> I suspect your [w:] is really [u-:].
Whereas here, [u-:] is attributed to the /u/ *before* /l/,
which is the form that sounds like the consonant [w]. I
thought this was firmly established as [u].

> I'm more convinced now than ever before that Adrian's [w=]
> is really [u-:]. Evidence is from And's description of RP
> English /u/ combined with Adrian's assertian that there is
> no difference between RP English /u/ and Australian /u/
> before /l/.
No, I said quite the opposite - I was talking about
*ordinary* /u/, not /u/ before /l/. On the English drama I
was listening to the other night, I could not tell the
difference between the pronunciation of the word _to_ (for
example) and my own.