Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Hear Me! Hear Me!

From:Tristan McLeay <kesuari@...>
Date:Monday, June 24, 2002, 12:05
On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 20:39, Adrian Morgan wrote:
> Tristan McLeay wrote, quoting myself: > > <fx: inserts [8] into memory bank>
> > > > > 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.
> I'm talking phonetically.
Okay. In such a case, then yes, I only have the first rule.
> I understand that [Q] is to [O] as [A] is to [a], where both [Q] and > [A] are vowels that don't exist in Australian English. I've never > learned how to transcribe the vowel in 'court'. I could easily be > wrong.
I have no idea whether Australian English has [a] or [A], I think it's actually in between the two, the first vowel of the diphthong /ai/ is different from the sound of 'car'. This is irrelevant at the moment, though. [Q] is the rounded form of [A]. [O] is the rounded form of [V] (the wedge and a vowel which I don't use; the difference between 'heart' and 'hut' is one of length). The rounded form of [a] is small-capital O-E ligature; I don't know the X-Sampa for this character. I think that you say that [Q] is the rounded form of [A] and [O] the rounded form of [a]?---this is not the case in X-Sampa. Some other form of ASCII-IPA may use it, but I'm not familiar with this.
> Hmm, until such time as someone confirms it one way or another, I > think I'll adopt your convention for [Q] vs [O] for the remainder of > the thread, just so we're both using the same convention. So my "holy" > is [h8u-li] and my "wholly" is [hQuli].
Yup, [h8u-li] sounds RP to me all right. Well, [h@ulI] would sound RP, but [h8u-li] would sound like a mock-RP by an Aussie.
> [oo in school] > > For me, it's exactly identical to the vowel in 'put' but longer; I > > have no idea of the exact quality of this vowel. > > For me it's "higher" in the terminology you used previously, i.e. the > jaws are a little more closed. If you transcribe "wool" as [wul] then > I might transcribe "school" as, I suppose, [skw=:l].
I think you cannot get a vowel higher than [u]. If you can, the vowel is generally transcribed as [U] (called 'upsilon' in IPA-letter-naming terminology, I believe, even though it doesn't resemble a Greek ypsilon. Which I've spelt differently merely to illustrate the difference in the two letters).
> Are you sure they're absolutely identical for you? I'm trying it that > way and it sounds wrong, like some kind of foreign accent. Often the > qualities of two vowels are hard to distinguish if one is always long > and the other is always short, because length is the primary cue.
With 'wool', there's the added complexity of a diphthong: there's a schwa inserted between the /w/ and the /u/ (or else the /u/ is pronounced as a (potentially rounded) [@]). However, I would say that 'full' and 'fool' were, indeed, distinguished purely by length. I don't think I can get a higher vowel than the one in there, so that's probably [u]. The vowel in 'boot' is more fronted (and long), but I wouldn't say it was diphthongal. The vowel in 'foot' is the same as the 'full' vowel. This is not, however, gospel. Tristan.


Christopher Bates <christopher.bates@...>Lenition