Re: Hear Me! Hear Me!
|From:||Adrian Morgan <morg0072@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, June 25, 2002, 1:35|
Tristan wrote, quoting myself:
> > > 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].
> > [u] equals [w=] (syllabic [w]). This is one thing I'm very confident
> > on, as I've been told so directly. So "fool" for me is [fu:l].
> Okay, I'm happy with that.
> > The vowel in "foot" is slightly more open (lower, I think).
> That tends to be the normal vowel there, I think, and would be [U].
Possibly, though I'm under the impression that [U] is lower again.
> > > The vowel in 'boot' is more fronted (and long), but I wouldn't say
> > > it was diphthongal.
> > Agreed. I don't know of any dialects where it's diphthogonal.
> People tend to claim the Australian /u:/ is pronounced more like [@u:].
Well, as you'll know, the dialect known as "broad Australian"  is
characterised by such things as schwas being inserted before various
vowels and "grown" being pronounced with two syllables. It could be
something to do with that, although [@u:] would have to be very broad
indeed - and we all know that broad Australian is not the dominant
dialect in this country.
 used mostly by people who wish to cultivate a 'rough' sort of
image and most common in remote rural regions -- not that I know
much about regional and social factors behind Austalian dialects