Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: USAGE: S. Australian (was: Re: Gz^rod|in)

From:And Rosta <a.rosta@...>
Date:Friday, March 31, 2000, 2:40
Basilyus (Basilius):
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 01:53:26 -0000, And Rosta <a.rosta@...> wrote: > > <...> > >I can confirm what Adrian is saying. I have in my accent a phoneme > >/Q:/ which occurs ONLY IN THE SINGLE WORD _gone_. > <...> > >I have never had the opportunity to consult > >other Australians about this feature, but I'm rather excited to find it > >thus confirmed by Adrian. Obviously it's a point of some theoretical > >interest that it is possible for a phoneme to occur in only a single > >word. > > - Extremely interesting! > > The only idea that comes to my mind is that such 'single-word' phoneme > might fill in some gap in the phonemic system.
I don't know -- my impression is that language is fairly tolerant of minor quirks. Quite a lot of people have obligatory [x] in _loch_ and no other words (Bach, maybe), for example.
> It reminds me of some languages acquiring short counterparts to the long > vowels they already have (or vice versa), and thus restoring the symmetry > between the subsystems of short and long vowels in their vocalism.
Possibly. But the restriction to a single word is
> For example, Czech acquired long [o:] in parallel to short [o], and > Lithuanian has short [o] and [e] which occur only in loanwords. > > Can it be said that AuE has a tendency to restore the parallelism between > long and short vowels? > > At any rate, AuE does look a bit richer than other varieties of English > in vowel pairs mainly opposed quantitatively. Can you confirm or > refute this?
Well, maybe, but not necessarily more than other accents. Besides on/gone, there's the distinctively Aus hut/heart contrasting in length alone. Somewhat haphazardly among English speakers, but certainly Aus is one of the places where it tends to occur, /&/ has split into /&/ and /&:/, so lad/mad don't rhyme (for me - the incidence of /&:/ varies among speakers/ dialects). A minimal pair is bade/bad. On the other hand, plenty of other accents have minimal pairs distinguished by vowel length alone. In various Eng accents ken/cairn, piss/pierce. In various northern Eng accents yon/yawn, fit/fate, get/gate, good/goad, foot/fought, at/art. In various southern Eng accents hut/hurt, hot/heart. Of these, I think foot/fought is the only one AusE might share [tho with something like [o] rather than the [O] in northern E), tho I'm not sure. ObConlang, as I mentioned in a recent message, my subsidiary conlang, 'Breersh', a future British English, has developed the following vowel inventory SHORT LONG i y u e 3 o e 3 o E a O E a O The guiding principle behind Breersh is that it be plausible, given the state of the lg in 2000. Some of the above-mentioned minimal pairs occur in Breersh: e - piss/pierce (/pe^s/, /pes/); E - ken/cairn (/kE^n/, /kEn/); 3 - bun/burn (/b3^n/, /b3n/) [hut/hurt are both /x3/, due to T-loss with compensatory lengthening in syllables that end up open]; a - lad/mad (/la^z/, /maz/); o - hood/hoard (/Ho^z/, /Hoz/) [foot/fought are both /Ho/<*>]; O - hod/hard (/xO^z/, /xOz/) [hot/heart are both /xO/]. [<*>I can't be sure that _foot_ is actually /Ho/ rather than /fe/ or /Hy/, because many words with /U/ in 2000 British E, ended up in Breersh with short /e^/ or /y/, with the residue forming the small class of words with short /o^/. I haven't yet worked out the details or conditioning factors for the trajectory of /U/ words.] --And.