Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: General phonetics // was "Newbie"

From:Tristan McLeay <zsau@...>
Date:Wednesday, January 14, 2004, 11:49
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Mark J. Reed wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:47:42AM +1030, Morgan Palaeo Associates wrote: > > 'Shortened' is definitely more appropriate than 'lengthened', I'd say, > > for the following reason. 'Shorter' is probably better still, though. > > Consider the length of '&' in various words. Here's a sample: > > > > pad (short) > > Not in my 'lect. "pad" and "bad" are of the same length, differing > only in the initial consonant (which differs in voicing, laxness/tenseness, > and aspiration).
*Sigh*. He's talking about Australian English. This is why EPTs are not recommended. (It should be pointed out that as far as I know, that pad is [p&d] and bad is [b&:d] (and no, it's not the initial consonant, cf. [l&d] or [p&:5] or [d&d]) means that here it's a phonemic contrast, and most lay people I've spoken to are aware of the difference, whereas I'm always intriged to hear of the difference of ee or oo before a voiced/voiceless consonant. Not to mention that my Melburnian speech made [el] [&l] so there's an occasional contrast when an earlier */&l/ was phonemicised as /&:l/. Very occasional though, for some reason most of the */el/~*/&l/ contrasts were in the vicinity of either an open syllable (no lengthening but still lowering i.e. salary~celery=/s&l@ri/) or unstressed syllable (no lengthening but still lowering i.e. shell~shall=/S&l/.)
> > bad (long) > > pat (short) > > bat (short) > > -Mark >
-- Tristan

Reply

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>