Re: Hear Me! Hear Me!

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" [1] 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.

Adrian.

[1] 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

Reply