Re: Hear Me! Hear Me!
|From:||Adrian Morgan <morg0072@...>|
|Date:||Monday, June 24, 2002, 4:32|
Aleks Koch wrote:
> Adrian, just read your first reply (to me) and I am replying to that
> without having read any other replies.
> I say that, yes it is a tripthong. At least in how I pronounce those
> words (Our, Devour...) also, interestingly and I wonder if it is the
> same for you, I pronounce "Shower" and "Power" and "hour" and "tower"
> and "glower" and "Flower" with the same tripthong.
As I mentioned in the replies you haven't read yet, for me these other
words have two syllables, and are therefore not triphthongs. It's
interesting because a triphthong is an anamoly in English.
> Well...Also when I pronounce a word like "soda" I pronounce it
> /soUdR/ that is IPA-ASCII /s/ /oU/ /d/ /R/
For me, the "a" in "soda" is a schwa, and the "o" is the same
diphthong as in "spoke". I'm not confident enough with the IPA to
transcribe this sort of thing. Phonemically it's equivalent to /o/,
despite being a diphthong phonetically.
This reminds me of a certain distinction between some [dia|idio]lects:
For me, there is a rule that the "o" in "spoke":
- cannot precede an /l/ in the same syllable,
- but *can* precede an /l/ that is the start of the *next* syllable.
This can be contrasted with dialects in which either the first or
second half of this rule is void.
Because the first half, I pronounce "gold" as [gOud], which is
pretty universal in Australia but can be contrasted with [gold]
which is common in British speech.
Because of the second half, the diphthongs in the first syllables of
"solo" and "polio" are for me the same "o" in "spoke". However, in a
common alternative idiolect (i.e. common in Australia) this second half
of the rule is void and the vowel [O] is used instead.