Discussion:
long vowels
Add Reply
Stefan Ram
2021-04-04 01:40:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
A Longman dictionary gives these pronunciations:

ˈkɑpi copy
si see

. But actually, the [i] in <see> is long and also even
a bit of a diphthong. Try substituting the [i] from
[ˈkɑpi] into [si]! It's too short!

So isn't it a bit unfortunate when length indications
are missing from many dictionaries?

I wondered whether this is so because the reader can
determine the length himself. But I don't know how.

Is the [i] long when it's stressed? Apparently in

ˌjʊɹəˈpiən European
kɹaɪˈtiəɹɪə criteria
aɪˈdiə idea
məˈtiəɹɪəl material
ˈθiəɾɚ theater
mjuːˈziəm museum
ˈpiəni peony
ˈpiənɪst pianist
ˈɹiəli really

, the [i] is stressed, but not long. (Now I am using a
different source that has length indicators.) So, a
tentative rule would be "a stressed [i] is long, unless
followed by a schwa". But one exception might be:

ˈviːə via

. And what about unstressed [i], are theses all short? No!

tiːˈviː TV
ɐˈlʌmniː alumnae (a group of female graduates, while
[ɐlˈʌmni] = alumni, a group of male graduates.
Heck, this difference might even be /phonemic/!)
ænˈtɛniː antennae
ˈeɪpɪsiːz apices
ˌɑːɹkiːˈɑːlədʒi archaeology
ˈæθliːt athlete
wiːkˈɛnd weekend

. So, are there any rules that allow one to tell when
an [i] is long?

If not, I am afraid, the dictionaries need to change
their procedures and start including length markers!
Peter Moylan
2021-04-04 00:54:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
ˈkɑpi copy
si see
. But actually, the [i] in <see> is long and also even
a bit of a diphthong. Try substituting the [i] from
[ˈkɑpi] into [si]! It's too short!
So isn't it a bit unfortunate when length indications
are missing from many dictionaries?
Even when they are present, they usually only distinguish between
"short" and "long". For your present example, the vowel in "see" is
longer than the one in "copy", but not long enough for me to classify it
as long. I've occasionally felt the need for a "half-long" indicator.

(Additional complication: in some BrE dialects "copy" is [kA.pI] rather
than [kA.pi].
Post by Stefan Ram
I wondered whether this is so because the reader can determine the
length himself. But I don't know how.
Probably. Native speakers rarely need that level of help. I would hope
that the length indication is present in dictionaries intended for
non-native speakers, but I can't check that because the only
dictionaries of that kind that I have aren't for English.

As I understand it, American lexicographers don't indicate length
anyway, because length is never phonemic in AmE.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Ross Clark
2021-04-04 10:46:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
   ˈkɑpi  copy
   si     see
   . But actually, the [i] in <see> is long and also even
   a bit of a diphthong. Try substituting the [i] from
   [ˈkɑpi] into [si]! It's too short!
   So isn't it a bit unfortunate when length indications
   are missing from many dictionaries?
Even when they are present, they usually only distinguish between
"short" and "long". For your present example, the vowel in "see" is
longer than the one in "copy", but not long enough for me to classify it
as long. I've occasionally felt the need for a "half-long" indicator.
(Additional complication: in some BrE dialects "copy" is [kA.pI] rather
than [kA.pi].
I wondered whether this is so because the reader can determine the
length himself. But I don't know how.
Probably. Native speakers rarely need that level of help. I would hope
that the length indication is present in dictionaries intended for
non-native speakers, but I can't check that because the only
dictionaries of that kind that I have aren't for English.
Second-language speakers do not need details of vowel length marked on
every word, since it follows fairly simple rules. If they want to
pronounce English well, they need to learn those rules.
Post by Peter Moylan
As I understand it, American lexicographers don't indicate length
anyway, because length is never phonemic in AmE.
It's not in RP either. The British practice of writing the vowel-length
symbol with some vowels is strictly redundant and unnecessary. For
example, the CPD (2011) lists vowel phonemes /i:/, /ɑ:/, /ɔ:/, /u:/, and
/ɜ:/ (fleece, father, thought, goose, nurse). But there is no vowel
phoneme /i/, /ɑ/, /ɔ/, /u/, or /ɜ/. The length differences (which do
exist) are always accompanied by differences in quality.

I think the point of the length marking is
(i) just to provide a little more visual distinction (i:/ɪ is easier to
distinguish than i/ɪ) and
(ii) to emphasize that they group with the diphthongs (eɪ, aʊ etc.) as
against the short vowels. So V:/VV can occur stressed in word-final
position whereas V can't.
Peter Moylan
2021-04-04 10:24:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter Moylan
As I understand it, American lexicographers don't indicate length
anyway, because length is never phonemic in AmE.
It's not in RP either. The British practice of writing the
vowel-length symbol with some vowels is strictly redundant and
unnecessary. For example, the CPD (2011) lists vowel phonemes /i:/,
/ɑ:/, /ɔ:/, /u:/, and /ɜ:/ (fleece, father, thought, goose, nurse).
But there is no vowel phoneme /i/, /ɑ/, /ɔ/, /u/, or /ɜ/. The length
differences (which do exist) are always accompanied by differences in
quality.
I'm surprised by those examples. In my AusE, the vowels in "fleece"
(same vowel as "police") and "goose" (same vowel as "loose") are short.

An example in AusE where length matters is the distinction between the
verb "can" [k&n] and the noun "can" [k&:n]. Just to make that clearer,
the verb I'm talking about is the one that's given full value (e.g. when
it's stressed), not the shortened "can" where the vowel collapses to a
schwa.
Post by Ross Clark
I think the point of the length marking is (i) just to provide a
little more visual distinction (i:/ɪ is easier to distinguish than
i/ɪ) and (ii) to emphasize that they group with the diphthongs (eɪ,
aʊ etc.) as against the short vowels. So V:/VV can occur stressed in
word-final position whereas V can't.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Ross Clark
2021-04-04 12:18:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter Moylan
As I understand it, American lexicographers don't indicate length
anyway, because length is never phonemic in AmE.
It's not in RP either. The British practice of writing the
vowel-length symbol with some vowels is strictly redundant and
unnecessary. For example, the CPD (2011) lists vowel phonemes /i:/,
/ɑ:/, /ɔ:/, /u:/, and /ɜ:/ (fleece, father, thought, goose, nurse).
But there is no vowel phoneme /i/, /ɑ/, /ɔ/, /u/, or /ɜ/. The length
differences (which do exist) are always accompanied by differences in
quality.
I'm surprised by those examples. In my AusE, the vowels in "fleece"
(same vowel as "police") and "goose" (same vowel as "loose") are short.
Interesting. So "bit" and "beat", "foot" and "boot", have the same length?
Post by Peter Moylan
An example in AusE where length matters is the distinction between the
verb "can" [k&n] and the noun "can" [k&:n]. Just to make that clearer,
the verb I'm talking about is the one that's given full value (e.g. when
it's stressed), not the shortened "can" where the vowel collapses to a
schwa.
This is the bad-lad split, also apparently found elsewhere.
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ross Clark
I think the point of the length marking is (i) just to provide a
little more visual distinction (i:/ɪ is easier to distinguish than
i/ɪ) and (ii) to emphasize that they group with the diphthongs (eɪ,
aʊ etc.) as against the short vowels. So V:/VV can occur stressed in
word-final position whereas V can't.
Just for interest, which AusEng vowels/diphthongs can you get in final
stressed position? (E.g. in MyEng see, say, sigh, sow (pig), soy, so,
sue, saw, but not the vowels of sit, set, sat, shut, soot).
Stefan Ram
2021-04-04 16:22:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Clark
Interesting. So "bit" and "beat", "foot" and "boot", have the same length?
Just to make that clear:

I totally excluded the phoneme /ɪ/ in my question.

The phoneme /ɪ/ is always short, so there is no question.

I was only talking about the phoneme /i/.

The phoneme /i/ can be realized by two allophones,
both of which can be stressed and unstressed:

The long allophone [iː] is actually a diphthong [ɪˑi],
(which becomes [iˑɪ] before a dark [ɫ]), but it is
conventionally often written [iː]. It appears at the
end of [ˈsiː] /ˈsi/ <see>.

The short allophone [i] is a monophthong. It appears
at the end of [ˈkɑːpi] /ˈkɑpi/ <copy>. NB: not [ˈkɑːpɪ]!

The question was about rules which tell when to use
which of these two allophones for the phoneme /i/.
Peter Moylan
2021-04-05 00:03:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter Moylan
As I understand it, American lexicographers don't indicate
length anyway, because length is never phonemic in AmE.
It's not in RP either. The British practice of writing the
vowel-length symbol with some vowels is strictly redundant and
unnecessary. For example, the CPD (2011) lists vowel phonemes
/i:/, /ɑ:/, /ɔ:/, /u:/, and /ɜ:/ (fleece, father, thought,
goose, nurse). But there is no vowel phoneme /i/, /ɑ/, /ɔ/, /u/,
or /ɜ/. The length differences (which do exist) are always
accompanied by differences in quality.
I'm surprised by those examples. In my AusE, the vowels in "fleece"
(same vowel as "police") and "goose" (same vowel as "loose") are short.
Interesting. So "bit" and "beat", "foot" and "boot", have the same length?
My "bit" and "beat" are both short. "Boot" is longer than "foot", but
not as long as "boon" or "moon".
Post by Ross Clark
Just for interest, which AusEng vowels/diphthongs can you get in
final stressed position? (E.g. in MyEng see, say, sigh, sow (pig),
soy, so, sue, saw, but not the vowels of sit, set, sat, shut, soot).
I can't think of any word that has a final sit, set, sat, shut, or shoot
vowel in stressed final position, and I agree with your see/say/etc list.

Some more: [A:] (guitar), [V":] (were), [O] (door). I can't think of any
where you wouldn't have a final 'r'.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Ross Clark
2021-04-05 01:41:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter Moylan
As I understand it, American lexicographers don't indicate
length anyway, because length is never phonemic in AmE.
It's not in RP either. The British practice of writing the
vowel-length symbol with some vowels is strictly redundant and
unnecessary. For example, the CPD (2011) lists vowel phonemes
/i:/, /ɑ:/, /ɔ:/, /u:/, and /ɜ:/ (fleece, father, thought,
goose, nurse). But there is no vowel phoneme /i/, /ɑ/, /ɔ/, /u/,
or /ɜ/. The length differences (which do exist) are always
accompanied by differences in quality.
I'm surprised by those examples. In my AusE, the vowels in "fleece"
(same vowel as "police") and "goose" (same vowel as "loose") are short.
Interesting. So "bit" and "beat", "foot" and "boot", have the same length?
My "bit" and "beat" are both short. "Boot" is longer than "foot", but
not as long as "boon" or "moon".
...because, different following consonant.
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ross Clark
Just for interest, which AusEng vowels/diphthongs can you get in
final stressed position? (E.g. in MyEng  see, say, sigh, sow (pig),
soy, so, sue, saw, but not the vowels of sit, set, sat, shut, soot).
I can't think of any word that has a final sit, set, sat, shut, or shoot
vowel in stressed final position, and I agree with your see/say/etc list.
Some more: [A:] (guitar), [V":] (were), [O] (door). I can't think of any
where you wouldn't have a final 'r'.
Thanks. Let me guess that you would also not get the vowel of shot in
stressed final position. I didn't mention it above, since I'm a
cot/caught mergerer and the vowels of shot and saw are phonemically the
same for me.

The small point arising out of this is that even if your "fleece" and
"goose" vowels are now phonetically short, they still group with the
historic long vowels and diphthongs in this distributional pattern.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-04 13:48:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
An example in AusE where length matters is the distinction between the
verb "can" [k&n] and the noun "can" [k&:n]. Just to make that clearer,
the verb I'm talking about is the one that's given full value (e.g. when
it's stressed), not the shortened "can" where the vowel collapses to a
schwa.
In most of AmE, those words are the same (settling on what you call
the "long" version), but in NYC and a few other areas, it's marry/Mary
respectively. As throughout AmE, the quality rather than the quantity
is what is noticed. Are yours indistinguishable in quality?
Peter Moylan
2021-04-05 00:07:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
An example in AusE where length matters is the distinction between
the verb "can" [k&n] and the noun "can" [k&:n]. Just to make that
clearer, the verb I'm talking about is the one that's given full
value (e.g. when it's stressed), not the shortened "can" where the
vowel collapses to a schwa.
In most of AmE, those words are the same (settling on what you call
the "long" version), but in NYC and a few other areas, it's
marry/Mary respectively. As throughout AmE, the quality rather than
the quantity is what is noticed. Are yours indistinguishable in
quality?
In the can/can pair I can't hear any difference in quality, only in length.

By the way, length is the only distinction in my merry/Mary pair. (Mary
is longer.) "Marry" has a different vowel quality, though.

([E] vs [E:] vs [&].)
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Jerry Friedman
2021-04-04 15:07:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter Moylan
As I understand it, American lexicographers don't indicate length
anyway, because length is never phonemic in AmE.
It's not in RP either. The British practice of writing the
vowel-length symbol with some vowels is strictly redundant and
unnecessary. For example, the CPD (2011) lists vowel phonemes /i:/,
/ɑ:/, /ɔ:/, /u:/, and /ɜ:/ (fleece, father, thought, goose, nurse).
But there is no vowel phoneme /i/, /ɑ/, /ɔ/, /u/, or /ɜ/. The length
differences (which do exist) are always accompanied by differences in
quality.
I'm surprised by those examples. In my AusE, the vowels in "fleece"
(same vowel as "police") and "goose" (same vowel as "loose") are short.
An example in AusE where length matters is the distinction between the
verb "can" [k&n] and the noun "can" [k&:n]. Just to make that clearer,
the verb I'm talking about is the one that's given full value (e.g. when
it's stressed), not the shortened "can" where the vowel collapses to a
schwa.
Meaning "put in a can"?

This article on Australian English gives two pairs of vowels that, in the
acoustic-based transcription it favors, differ in length. The example
words are head/hair and hard/hut. (These aren't minimal pairs, obviously;
they're from a list of the vowels of AusE in which most of the example
words start with "h".)

https://web.archive.org/web/20110522142800/http://clas.mq.edu.au/speech/phonetics/phonetics/ausenglish/index.html

The article doesn't discuss the can-can split.

I don't know why the article isn't available or is hard to find on the current
page from Macquarie.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-04 16:30:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter Moylan
As I understand it, American lexicographers don't indicate length
anyway, because length is never phonemic in AmE.
It's not in RP either. The British practice of writing the
vowel-length symbol with some vowels is strictly redundant and
unnecessary. For example, the CPD (2011) lists vowel phonemes /i:/,
/ɑ:/, /ɔ:/, /u:/, and /ɜ:/ (fleece, father, thought, goose, nurse).
But there is no vowel phoneme /i/, /ɑ/, /ɔ/, /u/, or /ɜ/. The length
differences (which do exist) are always accompanied by differences in
quality.
I'm surprised by those examples. In my AusE, the vowels in "fleece"
(same vowel as "police") and "goose" (same vowel as "loose") are short.
An example in AusE where length matters is the distinction between the
verb "can" [k&n] and the noun "can" [k&:n]. Just to make that clearer,
the verb I'm talking about is the one that's given full value (e.g. when
it's stressed), not the shortened "can" where the vowel collapses to a
schwa.
Meaning "put in a can"?
This article on Australian English gives two pairs of vowels that, in the
acoustic-based transcription it favors, differ in length. The example
words are head/hair and hard/hut. (These aren't minimal pairs, obviously;
they're from a list of the vowels of AusE in which most of the example
words start with "h".)
https://web.archive.org/web/20110522142800/http://clas.mq.edu.au/speech/phonetics/phonetics/ausenglish/index.html
The article doesn't discuss the can-can split.
I don't know why the article isn't available or is hard to find on the current
page from Macquarie.
Probably when a different instructor to0ok over the course (AmE sense)
they replaced it with their own materials.
Peter Moylan
2021-04-05 00:25:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
An example in AusE where length matters is the distinction between
the verb "can" [k&n] and the noun "can" [k&:n]. Just to make that
clearer, the verb I'm talking about is the one that's given full
value (e.g. when it's stressed), not the shortened "can" where the
vowel collapses to a schwa.
Meaning "put in a can"?
Interesting. I had forgotten that verb, and that one has a long vowel
for me, just like the noun.

The short vowel is in the "to be able" verb.

Example: "Who can do this?". "I can". Here, the "can" in the question
has a schwa, but the "can" in the reply has a short [&].
Post by Jerry Friedman
This article on Australian English gives two pairs of vowels that,
in the acoustic-based transcription it favors, differ in length.
The example words are head/hair and hard/hut. (These aren't minimal
pairs, obviously; they're from a list of the vowels of AusE in which
most of the example words start with "h".)
https://web.archive.org/web/20110522142800/http://clas.mq.edu.au/speech/phonetics/phonetics/ausenglish/index.html
The article doesn't discuss the can-can split.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't know why the article isn't available or is hard to find on
the current page from Macquarie.
As I read this, the head/hair and hard/hut distinctions are in the Cox &
Evans notation, which I assume is phonemic. Phonetically, the words in
those pairs are quite distinct in AusE.

head [hEd] hair [hE@]

(but perhaps most Australians would hear the diphthong as a long [E:],
and it has just occurred to me that it /is/ a long [E:] in rural dialects.)

hard [hA:d] hut [hVt]

No Australian, I believe, would say those two vowels are similar, even
if you could subtract the length difference. Beginning school children
learn the "basic" vowels as the ones in pat/pet/pit/pot/putt. Later on,
of course, they discover that there are other vowels, but I don't think
they would ever think of the "father" vowel as being in a similar class
to the "cut" vowel.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter Moylan
2021-04-06 00:59:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Example: "Who can do this?". "I can". Here, the "can" in the question
has a schwa, but the "can" in the reply has a short [&].
You have the same phonemic split there as us New Yorkers, but
you realize them differently. (But we part ways in that you merge
one of them with "merry"). Let's check the name Ken and the noun
in "swims into my ken"?
Those two kens are identical in my speech: [kEn].
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-04-06 07:46:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Example: "Who can do this?". "I can". Here, the "can" in the question
has a schwa, but the "can" in the reply has a short [&].
You have the same phonemic split there as us New Yorkers, but
you realize them differently. (But we part ways in that you merge
one of them with "merry"). Let's check the name Ken and the noun
in "swims into my ken"?
Those two kens are identical in my speech: [kEn].
Mine too.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-06 15:18:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Example: "Who can do this?". "I can". Here, the "can" in the question
has a schwa, but the "can" in the reply has a short [&].
You have the same phonemic split there as us New Yorkers, but
you realize them differently. (But we part ways in that you merge
one of them with "merry"). Let's check the name Ken and the noun
in "swims into my ken"?
Those two kens are identical in my speech: [kEn].
Of course they're identical with each other, but are they
identical to "can" or "can"?

I suspect the question was prompted by whatever was above "Example:"
Peter Moylan
2021-04-07 00:23:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 9:25:34 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Example: "Who can do this?". "I can". Here, the "can" in the
question has a schwa, but the "can" in the reply has a short
[&].
You have the same phonemic split there as us New Yorkers, but you
realize them differently. (But we part ways in that you merge one
of them with "merry"). Let's check the name Ken and the noun in
"swims into my ken"?
Those two kens are identical in my speech: [kEn].
Of course they're identical with each other, but are they identical
to "can" or "can"?
Definitely not. My dialect is not one that has merged /&/ and /E/, in
either long or short form.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Jerry Friedman
2021-04-06 14:07:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
An example in AusE where length matters is the distinction between
the verb "can" [k&n] and the noun "can" [k&:n]. Just to make that
clearer, the verb I'm talking about is the one that's given full
value (e.g. when it's stressed), not the shortened "can" where the
vowel collapses to a schwa.
Meaning "put in a can"?
Interesting. I had forgotten that verb, and that one has a long vowel
for me, just like the noun.
The short vowel is in the "to be able" verb.
Example: "Who can do this?". "I can". Here, the "can" in the question
has a schwa, but the "can" in the reply has a short [&].
Post by Jerry Friedman
This article on Australian English gives two pairs of vowels that,
in the acoustic-based transcription it favors, differ in length.
The example words are head/hair and hard/hut. (These aren't minimal
pairs, obviously; they're from a list of the vowels of AusE in which
most of the example words start with "h".)
https://web.archive.org/web/20110522142800/http://clas.mq.edu.au/speech/phonetics/phonetics/ausenglish/index.html
The article doesn't discuss the can-can split.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't know why the article isn't available or is hard to find on
the current page from Macquarie.
As I read this, the head/hair and hard/hut distinctions are in the Cox &
Evans notation, which I assume is phonemic.
Despite the crowded column headings, it's Harrington, Cox, and Evans.
And it's described as being based on acoustic analysis, not phonemic. Of
course even if I read their paper and listened to their samples, I wouldn't
be able to tell how good their analysis is.
Post by Peter Moylan
Phonetically, the words in
those pairs are quite distinct in AusE.
(but perhaps most Australians would hear the diphthong as a long [E:],
and it has just occurred to me that it /is/ a long [E:] in rural dialects.)
Hm. The page doesn't address dialect differences.

What about words with the SQUARE vowel that end in a consonant, such
as "hairs", "dared", "cairn"? Do they have a schwa off-glide (if that's the
right term) in non-rural dialects?
Post by Peter Moylan
hard [hA:d] hut [hVt]
No Australian, I believe, would say those two vowels are similar, even
if you could subtract the length difference. Beginning school children
learn the "basic" vowels as the ones in pat/pet/pit/pot/putt. Later on,
of course, they discover that there are other vowels, but I don't think
they would ever think of the "father" vowel as being in a similar class
to the "cut" vowel.
They sure sound similar to me, after listening to the first minute or so
of



with "party", "sunlight", "won", "study". (Also "Cambra", the capital of
your country.) I couldn't hear the difference in length, but I have an
American PROM.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2021-04-07 00:41:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Phonetically, the words in those pairs are quite distinct in AusE.
(but perhaps most Australians would hear the diphthong as a long
[E:], and it has just occurred to me that it /is/ a long [E:] in
rural dialects.)
Hm. The page doesn't address dialect differences.
There is a school of thought that says that AusE doesn't have dialects.
It's true that the differences between states are so slight that most
people don't notice them, but the city/rural differences are quite marked.

The most common classification of Australian dialects are a three-way
division into posh, educated, and broad. (I've forgotten what terms they
use for those three.) But that's an oversimplification, because I hear a
difference between urban broad and rural broad.
Post by Jerry Friedman
What about words with the SQUARE vowel that end in a consonant, such
as "hairs", "dared", "cairn"? Do they have a schwa off-glide (if
that's the right term) in non-rural dialects?
In such cases the off-glide can be slight and vary from person to
person. I definitely have it in "hairs", have it less noticeably in
"dared", and I'm not sure about "cairn".

ObTrivia: the North Queensland town of Cairns is called [k&:nz] by the
locals, even though most southeners say [kE:nz].
Post by Jerry Friedman
hard [hA:d] hut [hVt]
No Australian, I believe, would say those two vowels are similar,
even if you could subtract the length difference. Beginning school
children learn the "basic" vowels as the ones in
pat/pet/pit/pot/putt. Later on, of course, they discover that there
are other vowels, but I don't think they would ever think of the
"father" vowel as being in a similar class to the "cut" vowel.
They sure sound similar to me, after listening to the first minute or
so of
http://youtu.be/8CmDYLs9mSU
with "party", "sunlight", "won", "study". (Also "Cambra", the
capital of your country.) I couldn't hear the difference in length,
but I have an American PROM.
I suspect that this is just a case of a common phenomenon: we find it
hard to hear distinctions that don't occur in our own dialect.

I'm surprised that you put Canberra in that group, though. The usual
pronunciation is [k&(n)br@], and to my ears the CAT and CUT vowels are
very different from each other. (And neither of them sound much like the
vowel in "party" or "father".)
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Jerry Friedman
2021-04-07 02:03:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Phonetically, the words in those pairs are quite distinct in AusE.
(but perhaps most Australians would hear the diphthong as a long
[E:], and it has just occurred to me that it /is/ a long [E:] in
rural dialects.)
Hm. The page doesn't address dialect differences.
There is a school of thought that says that AusE doesn't have dialects.
It's true that the differences between states are so slight that most
people don't notice them, but the city/rural differences are quite marked.
The most common classification of Australian dialects are a three-way
division into posh, educated, and broad. (I've forgotten what terms they
use for those three.)
"Posh" is called "Cultivated", maybe suggesting deliberate cultivation, and
"Educated" is called "General" (Wikip).
Post by Peter Moylan
But that's an oversimplification, because I hear a
difference between urban broad and rural broad.
What about words with the SQUARE vowel that end in a consonant, such
as "hairs", "dared", "cairn"? Do they have a schwa off-glide (if
that's the right term) in non-rural dialects?
In such cases the off-glide can be slight and vary from person to
person. I definitely have it in "hairs", have it less noticeably in
"dared", and I'm not sure about "cairn".
That sort of thing creates problems for linguists, I'll bet.

(I picked "cairn" because of the potential for saying whether it differs
from "ken" in vowel quality or just length, like "dared" with "dead".
Another possible pair is "fairs" and "fez".)
Post by Peter Moylan
ObTrivia: the North Queensland town of Cairns is called [k&:nz] by the
locals, even though most southeners say [kE:nz].
hard [hA:d] hut [hVt]
No Australian, I believe, would say those two vowels are similar,
even if you could subtract the length difference. Beginning school
children learn the "basic" vowels as the ones in
pat/pet/pit/pot/putt. Later on, of course, they discover that there
are other vowels, but I don't think they would ever think of the
"father" vowel as being in a similar class to the "cut" vowel.
They sure sound similar to me, after listening to the first minute or
so of
http://youtu.be/8CmDYLs9mSU
with "party", "sunlight", "won", "study". (Also "Cambra", the
capital of your country.) I couldn't hear the difference in length,
but I have an American PROM.
I suspect that this is just a case of a common phenomenon: we find it
hard to hear distinctions that don't occur in our own dialect.
That's what I meant by the PROM.
Post by Peter Moylan
I'm surprised that you put Canberra in that group, though.
Sorry, that's just another pronunciation I noticed, not an example of the
vowels we were talking about.
Post by Peter Moylan
The usual
very different from each other. (And neither of them sound much like the
vowel in "party" or "father".)
Whereas to my American ears, your CALM and STRUT vowels, being
farther forward than mine, do sound a lot like TRAP.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2021-04-07 01:31:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
CUT vowels are very different from each other. (And neither of them
sound much like the vowel in "party" or "father".)
Whereas to my American ears, your CALM and STRUT vowels, being
farther forward than mine, do sound a lot like TRAP.
I don't usually listen for this sort of thing, and I'm certainly not
trained to fully understand the forward/back dimension.

What we Australians often get to hear is the difference between
Australian and NZ English. The two would be almost identical if it
weren't for the fact that most of the short vowels are different. I'm
inclined to think of them as "shifted sideways", because they correspond
in the way shown in the following table.

Aus NZ

/@/ /I/
/I/ /E/
/E/ /&/

(I feel that there should be an extra line in that table, but I can't
think of what it might be.)
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-07 13:55:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
What we Australians often get to hear is the difference between
Australian and NZ English. The two would be almost identical if it
weren't for the fact that most of the short vowels are different. I'm
inclined to think of them as "shifted sideways", because they correspond
in the way shown in the following table.
Aus NZ
/I/ /E/
/E/ /&/
(I feel that there should be an extra line in that table, but I can't
think of what it might be.)
Please try to remember -- this is _exactly_ what I'm looking for, and
the chapters always treat the two dialects separately!

Maybe some involving back vowels u, o, a, U, O?
Peter Moylan
2021-04-08 00:50:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
What we Australians often get to hear is the difference between
Australian and NZ English. The two would be almost identical if it
weren't for the fact that most of the short vowels are different. I'm
inclined to think of them as "shifted sideways", because they correspond
in the way shown in the following table.
Aus NZ
/I/ /E/
/E/ /&/
(I feel that there should be an extra line in that table, but I can't
think of what it might be.)
Please try to remember -- this is _exactly_ what I'm looking for, and
the chapters always treat the two dialects separately!
Maybe some involving back vowels u, o, a, U, O?
In that group of vowels, I've never noticed any difference between AusE
and NZE. Ross might have an opinion on this.

We also seem to have the same pronunciation of /i/, despite the obvious
difference in /I/.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Lewis
2021-04-07 14:00:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
CUT vowels are very different from each other. (And neither of them
sound much like the vowel in "party" or "father".)
Whereas to my American ears, your CALM and STRUT vowels, being
farther forward than mine, do sound a lot like TRAP.
I don't usually listen for this sort of thing, and I'm certainly not
trained to fully understand the forward/back dimension.
What we Australians often get to hear is the difference between
Australian and NZ English. The two would be almost identical if it
weren't for the fact that most of the short vowels are different. I'm
inclined to think of them as "shifted sideways", because they correspond
in the way shown in the following table.
It is a difference that is obvious to Ozzies an Kiwis and imperceptible
to (at least my) American ears.

I was on a audio call with some people a year or five back and one was
from Wellington and one was from Sydney and they were making fun of
each others accents, but then ganged up on me when I said "You know you
sound exactly the same to me, right?"

They then proceeded to give examples of IDENTICALLY PRONOUNCED WORDS
that supposedly showcase the very obvious and drastic differences
between their accents. I told them they were obviously having me on as
they were saying the same words.

Much hilarity ensued.

My wife and I had a similar experience watching an Australian TV show
where one of the characters was from New Zealand and this was treated on
the show for quite awhile as something that obviously everyone knew.

Wife: Are we supposed to be able to tell he's from New Zealand?
Me: *WE* certainly can't, but *they* evidently can.

Watching Wellington Paranormal (after a quick trans-pacific relocation)
hasn't helped, though the word choices are slightly different from what
I expect, so there's some differences, and the native words that are
integrated in are quote different, so we'd have a fighting chance, but I
don't think in terms of the accent we hear any difference.

But then again, unless someone is really doubling down on the Welsh, we
cannot hear the difference between generic Welsh English accent and
generic English accent until someone says "I am definitely Welsh!"
--
You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want
If you ignore enough data.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-04-07 14:08:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
CUT vowels are very different from each other. (And neither of them
sound much like the vowel in "party" or "father".)
Whereas to my American ears, your CALM and STRUT vowels, being
farther forward than mine, do sound a lot like TRAP.
I don't usually listen for this sort of thing, and I'm certainly not
trained to fully understand the forward/back dimension.
What we Australians often get to hear is the difference between
Australian and NZ English. The two would be almost identical if it
weren't for the fact that most of the short vowels are different. I'm
inclined to think of them as "shifted sideways", because they
correspond in the way shown in the following table.
It is a difference that is obvious to Ozzies an Kiwis and
imperceptible to (at least my) American ears.
I was on a audio call with some people a year or five back and one was
from Wellington and one was from Sydney and they were making fun of
each others accents, but then ganged up on me when I said "You know
you sound exactly the same to me, right?"
They then proceeded to give examples of IDENTICALLY PRONOUNCED WORDS
that supposedly showcase the very obvious and drastic differences
between their accents. I told them they were obviously having me on as
they were saying the same words.
Much hilarity ensued.
My wife and I had a similar experience watching an Australian TV show
where one of the characters was from New Zealand and this was treated
on the show for quite awhile as something that obviously everyone
knew.
Wife: Are we supposed to be able to tell he's from New Zealand?
Me: *WE* certainly can't, but *they* evidently can.
Watching Wellington Paranormal (after a quick trans-pacific
relocation) hasn't helped, though the word choices are slightly
different from what I expect, so there's some differences, and the
native words that are integrated in are quote different, so we'd have
a fighting chance, but I don't think in terms of the accent we hear
any difference.
But then again, unless someone is really doubling down on the Welsh,
we cannot hear the difference between generic Welsh English accent and
generic English accent until someone says "I am definitely Welsh!"
Some of it is in the word order, look you.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
s***@my-deja.com
2021-04-07 15:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
CUT vowels are very different from each other. (And neither of them
sound much like the vowel in "party" or "father".)
Whereas to my American ears, your CALM and STRUT vowels, being
farther forward than mine, do sound a lot like TRAP.
I don't usually listen for this sort of thing, and I'm certainly not
trained to fully understand the forward/back dimension.
What we Australians often get to hear is the difference between
Australian and NZ English. The two would be almost identical if it
weren't for the fact that most of the short vowels are different. I'm
inclined to think of them as "shifted sideways", because they correspond
in the way shown in the following table.
It is a difference that is obvious to Ozzies an Kiwis and imperceptible
to (at least my) American ears.
I was on a audio call with some people a year or five back and one was
from Wellington and one was from Sydney and they were making fun of
each others accents, but then ganged up on me when I said "You know you
sound exactly the same to me, right?"
They then proceeded to give examples of IDENTICALLY PRONOUNCED WORDS
that supposedly showcase the very obvious and drastic differences
between their accents. I told them they were obviously having me on as
they were saying the same words.
Much hilarity ensued.
My wife and I had a similar experience watching an Australian TV show
where one of the characters was from New Zealand and this was treated on
the show for quite awhile as something that obviously everyone knew.
Wife: Are we supposed to be able to tell he's from New Zealand?
Me: *WE* certainly can't, but *they* evidently can.
Watching Wellington Paranormal (after a quick trans-pacific relocation)
hasn't helped, though the word choices are slightly different from what
I expect, so there's some differences, and the native words that are
integrated in are quote different, so we'd have a fighting chance, but I
don't think in terms of the accent we hear any difference.
You could always ask a New Zealander to say
"Ten cents for the dentist"
I have not heard an Australian with the same level of vowel intensity - yet.
Peter Moylan
2021-04-08 00:54:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Wife: Are we supposed to be able to tell he's from New Zealand?
Me:*WE* certainly can't, but*they* evidently can.
Watching Wellington Paranormal (after a quick trans-pacific
relocation) hasn't helped, though the word choices are slightly
different from what I expect, so there's some differences, and the
native words that are integrated in are quote different, so we'd have
a fighting chance, but I don't think in terms of the accent we hear
any difference.
One of the clues is in the word "wee": a common word in NZE, a rare word
in AusE.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Lewis
2021-04-08 03:41:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Wife: Are we supposed to be able to tell he's from New Zealand?
Me:*WE* certainly can't, but*they* evidently can.
Watching Wellington Paranormal (after a quick trans-pacific
relocation) hasn't helped, though the word choices are slightly
different from what I expect, so there's some differences, and the
native words that are integrated in are quote different, so we'd have
a fighting chance, but I don't think in terms of the accent we hear
any difference.
One of the clues is in the word "wee": a common word in NZE, a rare word
in AusE.
As I said "the word choices are slightly different" but that has nothing
to do with hearing a difference in the accents.
--
It's better to burn out than it is to rust -- Neil Young as quoted by
Kurt Cobain
Ken Blake
2021-04-08 15:56:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Wife: Are we supposed to be able to tell he's from New Zealand?
Me:*WE* certainly can't, but*they* evidently can.
Watching Wellington Paranormal (after a quick trans-pacific
relocation) hasn't helped, though the word choices are slightly
different from what I expect, so there's some differences, and the
native words that are integrated in are quote different, so we'd have
a fighting chance, but I don't think in terms of the accent we hear
any difference.
One of the clues is in the word "wee": a common word in NZE, a rare word
in AusE.
Wee also rarely use that word here in the USA.
--
Ken
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-04-08 16:19:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Wife: Are we supposed to be able to tell he's from New Zealand?
Me:*WE* certainly can't, but*they* evidently can.
Watching Wellington Paranormal (after a quick trans-pacific
relocation) hasn't helped, though the word choices are slightly
different from what I expect, so there's some differences, and the
native words that are integrated in are quote different, so we'd have
a fighting chance, but I don't think in terms of the accent we hear
any difference.
One of the clues is in the word "wee": a common word in NZE, a rare word
in AusE.
Wee also rarely use that word here in the USA.
Psurely you've heard of Nintendo's device: ; spelt Wii, pronounced
"urine"
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Ken Blake
2021-04-08 17:17:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Wife: Are we supposed to be able to tell he's from New Zealand?
Me:*WE* certainly can't, but*they* evidently can.
Watching Wellington Paranormal (after a quick trans-pacific
relocation) hasn't helped, though the word choices are slightly
different from what I expect, so there's some differences, and the
native words that are integrated in are quote different, so we'd have
a fighting chance, but I don't think in terms of the accent we hear
any difference.
One of the clues is in the word "wee": a common word in NZE, a rare
word
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
in AusE.
Wee also rarely use that word here in the USA.
Psurely you've heard of Nintendo's device: ; spelt Wii, pronounced
"urine"
There must be a joke there somewhere, but it's over my head. I know next
to nothing about Nintendo.
--
Ken
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-04-08 18:27:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Wife: Are we supposed to be able to tell he's from New Zealand?
Me:*WE* certainly can't, but*they* evidently can.
Watching Wellington Paranormal (after a quick trans-pacific
relocation) hasn't helped, though the word choices are slightly
different from what I expect, so there's some differences, and the
native words that are integrated in are quote different, so we'd
have a fighting chance, but I don't think in terms of the accent
we hear any difference.
One of the clues is in the word "wee": a common word in NZE, a rare
word
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
in AusE.
Wee also rarely use that word here in the USA.
Psurely you've heard of Nintendo's device: ; spelt Wii, pronounced
"urine"
There must be a joke there somewhere, but it's over my head. I know
next to nothing about Nintendo.
I may have it wrong; or I could have been whooshed earlier;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii
[pron WEE]

UK (anyhow) children use the word Wee for piss: "Mum, I need a wee!"
(sometimes "do a wee-wee")
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter Moylan
2021-04-09 00:21:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
UK (anyhow) children use the word Wee for piss: "Mum, I need a wee!"
(sometimes "do a wee-wee")
Yes, all parents know about being woken in the wee wee hours of the night.

(It also happens as one gets older.)
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
bruce bowser
2021-04-13 22:41:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Wife: Are we supposed to be able to tell he's from New Zealand?
Me:*WE* certainly can't, but*they* evidently can.
Watching Wellington Paranormal (after a quick trans-pacific
relocation) hasn't helped, though the word choices are slightly
different from what I expect, so there's some differences, and the
native words that are integrated in are quote different, so we'd
have a fighting chance, but I don't think in terms of the accent
we hear any difference.
One of the clues is in the word "wee": a common word in NZE, a rare
word
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
in AusE.
Wee also rarely use that word here in the USA.
Psurely you've heard of Nintendo's device: ; spelt Wii, pronounced
"urine"
There must be a joke there somewhere, but it's over my head. I know
next to nothing about Nintendo.
I may have it wrong; or I could have been whooshed earlier;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii
[pron WEE]
UK (anyhow) children use the word Wee for piss: "Mum, I need a wee!"
(sometimes "do a wee-wee")
Kids in the US and Canada sometimes say 'whiz', instead of 'wee'. Plus, instead of lad, they might say 'mofo'.
[pron MŌfo]
Chrysi Cat
2021-04-14 04:48:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bruce bowser
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Wife: Are we supposed to be able to tell he's from New Zealand?
Me:*WE* certainly can't, but*they* evidently can.
Watching Wellington Paranormal (after a quick trans-pacific
relocation) hasn't helped, though the word choices are slightly
different from what I expect, so there's some differences, and the
native words that are integrated in are quote different, so we'd
have a fighting chance, but I don't think in terms of the accent
we hear any difference.
One of the clues is in the word "wee": a common word in NZE, a rare
word
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
in AusE.
Wee also rarely use that word here in the USA.
Psurely you've heard of Nintendo's device: ; spelt Wii, pronounced
"urine"
There must be a joke there somewhere, but it's over my head. I know
next to nothing about Nintendo.
I may have it wrong; or I could have been whooshed earlier;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii
[pron WEE]
UK (anyhow) children use the word Wee for piss: "Mum, I need a wee!"
(sometimes "do a wee-wee")
Kids in the US and Canada sometimes say 'whiz', instead of 'wee'. Plus, instead of lad, they might say 'mofo'.
[pron MŌfo]
Wait, what? On that last part, I've only ever heard that word with BOTH
"o"s the same. And like what I assume is your first one, at that (that
symbol doesn't seem to be part of Kirshenbaum OR IPA, but I assume
you're going for the mid back, rounded vowel--followed by what,
exactlym, the close-mid back rounded vowel?).

Note that I'm also young enough that the word made its way out of Black
slang to be said by whites my age as well.

As for the "whiz"/"wee" line, I've only ever heard "whiz" used by OLDER
kids, like--admittedly--the ones who would use the term "mofo".

In addition, I think I've only ever heard it used UNironically by
fictional characters--Homer Simpson and Doug MacKenzie. Though it's
definitely known only as a toilet reference in real life, since there
are 20 jokes about the way that not only did Timely comics stupidly name
a character the Whizzer, but also let him wear yellow. There is, in
that, the express suggestion that just because it wasn't INTENDED to be
a toilet gag at the time of creation, still means nothing and the
creators "should have known better".

And kids, at least a decade ago, KNEW the word "wee" even if they
preferred not to use it--it was mainly Americans that I remember making
the first negative comments that "Nintendo's Revolution" didn't get to
keep its code-name because the new name was a potty joke.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Ross Clark
2021-04-14 08:32:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by bruce bowser
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Wife: Are we supposed to be able to tell he's from New Zealand?
Me:*WE* certainly can't, but*they* evidently can.
Watching Wellington Paranormal (after a quick trans-pacific
relocation) hasn't helped, though the word choices are slightly
different from what I expect, so there's some differences, and the
native words that are integrated in are quote different, so we'd
have a fighting chance, but I don't think in terms of the accent
we hear any difference.
One of the clues is in the word "wee": a common word in NZE, a rare
word
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
in AusE.
Wee also rarely use that word here in the USA.
Psurely you've heard of Nintendo's device: ; spelt Wii, pronounced
"urine"
There must be a joke there somewhere, but it's over my head. I know
next to nothing about Nintendo.
I may have it wrong; or I could have been whooshed earlier;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii
[pron WEE]
UK (anyhow) children use the word Wee for piss: "Mum, I need a wee!"
(sometimes "do a wee-wee")
Kids in the US and Canada sometimes say 'whiz', instead of 'wee'.
Plus, instead of lad, they might say 'mofo'.
[pron MŌfo]
Wait, what? On that last part, I've only ever heard that word with BOTH
"o"s the same. And like what I assume is your first one, at that (that
symbol doesn't seem to be part of Kirshenbaum OR IPA, but I assume
you're going for the mid back, rounded vowel--followed by what,
exactlym, the close-mid back rounded vowel?).
Note that I'm also young enough that the word made its way out of Black
slang to be said by whites my age as well.
As for the "whiz"/"wee" line, I've only ever heard "whiz" used by OLDER
kids, like--admittedly--the ones who would use the term "mofo".
In addition, I think I've only ever heard it used UNironically by
fictional characters--Homer Simpson and Doug MacKenzie. Though it's
definitely known only as a toilet reference in real life, since there
are 20 jokes about the way that not only did Timely comics stupidly name
a character the Whizzer, but also let him wear yellow. There is, in
that, the express suggestion that just because it wasn't INTENDED to be
a toilet gag at the time of creation, still means nothing and the
creators "should have known better".
And kids, at least a decade ago, KNEW the word "wee" even if they
preferred not to use it--it was mainly Americans that I remember making
the first negative comments that "Nintendo's Revolution" didn't get to
keep its code-name because the new name was a potty joke.
Re "whiz":

1929 D.H. Lawrence Pansies 24: I wish I was a gentleman As full of wet
as a watering-can To whizz in the eye of a police-man [OED]

After that, the next citation is:

1968 Frank Zappa ‘Let's Make The Water Turn Black’ [lyrics] Whizzing and
pasting and pooting through the day.

And about the same time I can testify to learning it from Firesign
Theater (SoCal like Zappa). "Bear Whiz Beer" one of their staple
fictional products.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-14 14:39:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by bruce bowser
Kids in the US and Canada sometimes say 'whiz', instead of 'wee'.
Plus, instead of lad, they might say 'mofo'. [pron MŌfo]
Wait, what? On that last part, I've only ever heard that word with BOTH
"o"s the same. And like what I assume is your first one, at that (that
symbol doesn't seem to be part of Kirshenbaum OR IPA, but I assume
you're going for the mid back, rounded vowel--followed by what,
exactlym, the close-mid back rounded vowel?).
Note the macron on the first syllable. I suspect he's using dictionary
transcription, with capitals to indicate stress.
bruce bowser
2021-04-14 17:34:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by bruce bowser
Kids in the US and Canada sometimes say 'whiz', instead of 'wee'.
Plus, instead of lad, they might say 'mofo'. [pron MŌfo]
Wait, what? On that last part, I've only ever heard that word with BOTH
"o"s the same. And like what I assume is your first one, at that (that
symbol doesn't seem to be part of Kirshenbaum OR IPA, but I assume
you're going for the mid back, rounded vowel--followed by what,
exactlym, the close-mid back rounded vowel?).
Note the macron on the first syllable. I suspect he's using dictionary
transcription, with capitals to indicate stress.
... with careful relation to the post (Apr 8, 2021, 2:27:44 PM - 6 days ago) that I was responding to partly, yes.
bruce bowser
2021-04-14 17:36:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bruce bowser
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by bruce bowser
Kids in the US and Canada sometimes say 'whiz', instead of 'wee'.
Plus, instead of lad, they might say 'mofo'. [pron MŌfo]
Wait, what? On that last part, I've only ever heard that word with BOTH
"o"s the same. And like what I assume is your first one, at that (that
symbol doesn't seem to be part of Kirshenbaum OR IPA, but I assume
you're going for the mid back, rounded vowel--followed by what,
exactlym, the close-mid back rounded vowel?).
Note the macron on the first syllable. I suspect he's using dictionary
transcription, with capitals to indicate stress.
... with careful relation to the post (Apr 8, 2021, 2:27:44 PM - 6 days ago) that I was responding to partly, yes.
The second syllable would be understood regardless of emphasis.
bruce bowser
2021-04-14 17:50:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Wife: Are we supposed to be able to tell he's from New Zealand?
Me:*WE* certainly can't, but*they* evidently can.
Watching Wellington Paranormal (after a quick trans-pacific
relocation) hasn't helped, though the word choices are slightly
different from what I expect, so there's some differences, and the
native words that are integrated in are quote different, so we'd
have a fighting chance, but I don't think in terms of the accent
we hear any difference.
One of the clues is in the word "wee": a common word in NZE, a rare
word
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
in AusE.
Wee also rarely use that word here in the USA.
Psurely you've heard of Nintendo's device: ; spelt Wii, pronounced
"urine"
There must be a joke there somewhere, but it's over my head. I know
next to nothing about Nintendo.
I may have it wrong; or I could have been whooshed earlier;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii
[pron WEE]
UK (anyhow) children use the word Wee for piss: "Mum, I need a wee!"
(sometimes "do a wee-wee")
Kids in the US and Canada sometimes say 'whiz', instead of 'wee'. Plus, instead of lad, they might say 'mofo'.
[pron MŌfo]
Wait, what? On that last part, I've only ever heard that word with BOTH
"o"s the same. And like what I assume is your first one, at that (that
symbol doesn't seem to be part of Kirshenbaum OR IPA, but I assume
you're going for the mid back, rounded vowel--followed by what,
exactlym, the close-mid back rounded vowel?).
Note that I'm also young enough that the word made its way out of Black
slang to be said by whites my age as well.
As for the "whiz"/"wee" line, I've only ever heard "whiz" used by OLDER
kids, like--admittedly--the ones who would use the term "mofo".
In addition, I think I've only ever heard it used UNironically by
fictional characters--Homer Simpson and Doug MacKenzie. Though it's
definitely known only as a toilet reference in real life, since there
are 20 jokes about the way that not only did Timely comics stupidly name
a character the Whizzer, but also let him wear yellow. There is, in
that, the express suggestion that just because it wasn't INTENDED to be
a toilet gag at the time of creation, still means nothing and the
creators "should have known better".
And kids, at least a decade ago, KNEW the word "wee" even if they
preferred not to use it--it was mainly Americans that I remember making
the first negative comments that "Nintendo's Revolution" didn't get to
keep its code-name because the new name was a potty joke.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
I don't see an issue because, correct pronunciation hinges on which spelling is correct: Muther fucker or Mother fucker

Muther fucker abbr. is Mofo [pron MŌfo]
Muther fucker abbr. is still Mofo [pron MŌfo], instead of [MŪfo]? or [MŪfu]? or even [MŪfū]? No, its still [MŌfo].
S K
2021-04-05 14:51:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter Moylan
ˈkɑpi copy
si see
. But actually, the [i] in <see> is long and also even
a bit of a diphthong. Try substituting the [i] from
[ˈkɑpi] into [si]! It's too short!
So isn't it a bit unfortunate when length indications
are missing from many dictionaries?
Even when they are present, they usually only distinguish between
"short" and "long". For your present example, the vowel in "see" is
longer than the one in "copy", but not long enough for me to classify it
as long. I've occasionally felt the need for a "half-long" indicator.
(Additional complication: in some BrE dialects "copy" is [kA.pI] rather
than [kA.pi].
I wondered whether this is so because the reader can determine the
length himself. But I don't know how.
Probably. Native speakers rarely need that level of help. I would hope
that the length indication is present in dictionaries intended for
non-native speakers, but I can't check that because the only
dictionaries of that kind that I have aren't for English.
Second-language speakers do not need details of vowel length marked on
every word, since it follows fairly simple rules. If they want to
pronounce English well, they need to learn those rules.
Post by Peter Moylan
As I understand it, American lexicographers don't indicate length
anyway, because length is never phonemic in AmE.
It's not in RP either. The British practice of writing the vowel-length
symbol with some vowels is strictly redundant and unnecessary.
I can only think of "prosperity theology" as a field of human endeavor that spreads more falsehoods than linguists.

Almost all linguists cannot think clearly

They should say "present day English doesn't use vowel length to make new words" and instead you get their murky half-truths and outright lies, repeated endlessly.
Ross Clark
2021-04-05 22:15:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by S K
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter Moylan
ˈkɑpi copy
si see
. But actually, the [i] in <see> is long and also even
a bit of a diphthong. Try substituting the [i] from
[ˈkɑpi] into [si]! It's too short!
So isn't it a bit unfortunate when length indications
are missing from many dictionaries?
Even when they are present, they usually only distinguish between
"short" and "long". For your present example, the vowel in "see" is
longer than the one in "copy", but not long enough for me to classify it
as long. I've occasionally felt the need for a "half-long" indicator.
(Additional complication: in some BrE dialects "copy" is [kA.pI] rather
than [kA.pi].
I wondered whether this is so because the reader can determine the
length himself. But I don't know how.
Probably. Native speakers rarely need that level of help. I would hope
that the length indication is present in dictionaries intended for
non-native speakers, but I can't check that because the only
dictionaries of that kind that I have aren't for English.
Second-language speakers do not need details of vowel length marked on
every word, since it follows fairly simple rules. If they want to
pronounce English well, they need to learn those rules.
Post by Peter Moylan
As I understand it, American lexicographers don't indicate length
anyway, because length is never phonemic in AmE.
It's not in RP either. The British practice of writing the vowel-length
symbol with some vowels is strictly redundant and unnecessary.
I can only think of "prosperity theology" as a field of human endeavor that spreads more falsehoods than linguists.
Almost all linguists cannot think clearly
They should say "present day English doesn't use vowel length to make new words" and instead you get their murky half-truths and outright lies, repeated endlessly.
OMG, anal/skpf/Lalkaka has escaped again.
S K
2021-04-05 23:30:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Clark
Post by S K
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter Moylan
ˈkɑpi copy
si see
. But actually, the [i] in <see> is long and also even
a bit of a diphthong. Try substituting the [i] from
[ˈkɑpi] into [si]! It's too short!
So isn't it a bit unfortunate when length indications
are missing from many dictionaries?
Even when they are present, they usually only distinguish between
"short" and "long". For your present example, the vowel in "see" is
longer than the one in "copy", but not long enough for me to classify it
as long. I've occasionally felt the need for a "half-long" indicator.
(Additional complication: in some BrE dialects "copy" is [kA.pI] rather
than [kA.pi].
I wondered whether this is so because the reader can determine the
length himself. But I don't know how.
Probably. Native speakers rarely need that level of help. I would hope
that the length indication is present in dictionaries intended for
non-native speakers, but I can't check that because the only
dictionaries of that kind that I have aren't for English.
Second-language speakers do not need details of vowel length marked on
every word, since it follows fairly simple rules. If they want to
pronounce English well, they need to learn those rules.
Post by Peter Moylan
As I understand it, American lexicographers don't indicate length
anyway, because length is never phonemic in AmE.
It's not in RP either. The British practice of writing the vowel-length
symbol with some vowels is strictly redundant and unnecessary.
I can only think of "prosperity theology" as a field of human endeavor that spreads more falsehoods than linguists.
Almost all linguists cannot think clearly
They should say "present day English doesn't use vowel length to make new words" and instead you get their murky half-truths and outright lies, repeated endlessly.
OMG, anal/skpf/Lalkaka has escaped again.
S K
2021-04-05 23:32:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Clark
Post by S K
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter Moylan
ˈkɑpi copy
si see
. But actually, the [i] in <see> is long and also even
a bit of a diphthong. Try substituting the [i] from
[ˈkɑpi] into [si]! It's too short!
So isn't it a bit unfortunate when length indications
are missing from many dictionaries?
Even when they are present, they usually only distinguish between
"short" and "long". For your present example, the vowel in "see" is
longer than the one in "copy", but not long enough for me to classify it
as long. I've occasionally felt the need for a "half-long" indicator.
(Additional complication: in some BrE dialects "copy" is [kA.pI] rather
than [kA.pi].
I wondered whether this is so because the reader can determine the
length himself. But I don't know how.
Probably. Native speakers rarely need that level of help. I would hope
that the length indication is present in dictionaries intended for
non-native speakers, but I can't check that because the only
dictionaries of that kind that I have aren't for English.
Second-language speakers do not need details of vowel length marked on
every word, since it follows fairly simple rules. If they want to
pronounce English well, they need to learn those rules.
Post by Peter Moylan
As I understand it, American lexicographers don't indicate length
anyway, because length is never phonemic in AmE.
It's not in RP either. The British practice of writing the vowel-length
symbol with some vowels is strictly redundant and unnecessary.
I can only think of "prosperity theology" as a field of human endeavor that spreads more falsehoods than linguists.
Almost all linguists cannot think clearly
They should say "present day English doesn't use vowel length to make new words" and instead you get their murky half-truths and outright lies, repeated endlessly.
OMG, anal/skpf/Lalkaka has escaped again.
how does it feel to have lived an entire life spreading lies and misinformation (aka "doing linguistics")?
S K
2021-04-10 19:35:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by S K
Post by Ross Clark
Post by S K
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter Moylan
ˈkɑpi copy
si see
. But actually, the [i] in <see> is long and also even
a bit of a diphthong. Try substituting the [i] from
[ˈkɑpi] into [si]! It's too short!
So isn't it a bit unfortunate when length indications
are missing from many dictionaries?
Even when they are present, they usually only distinguish between
"short" and "long". For your present example, the vowel in "see" is
longer than the one in "copy", but not long enough for me to classify it
as long. I've occasionally felt the need for a "half-long" indicator.
(Additional complication: in some BrE dialects "copy" is [kA.pI] rather
than [kA.pi].
I wondered whether this is so because the reader can determine the
length himself. But I don't know how.
Probably. Native speakers rarely need that level of help. I would hope
that the length indication is present in dictionaries intended for
non-native speakers, but I can't check that because the only
dictionaries of that kind that I have aren't for English.
Second-language speakers do not need details of vowel length marked on
every word, since it follows fairly simple rules. If they want to
pronounce English well, they need to learn those rules.
Post by Peter Moylan
As I understand it, American lexicographers don't indicate length
anyway, because length is never phonemic in AmE.
It's not in RP either. The British practice of writing the vowel-length
symbol with some vowels is strictly redundant and unnecessary.
I can only think of "prosperity theology" as a field of human endeavor that spreads more falsehoods than linguists.
Almost all linguists cannot think clearly
They should say "present day English doesn't use vowel length to make new words" and instead you get their murky half-truths and outright lies, repeated endlessly.
OMG, anal/skpf/Lalkaka has escaped again.
how does it feel to have lived an entire life spreading lies and misinformation (aka "doing linguistics")?
Ireland and Island - distinguished largely by vowel length - can anybody get stupider than linguists?
Chrysi Cat
2021-04-11 20:05:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 4/10/2021 1:35 PM, S K wrote:

<snip>
Post by S K
Ireland and Island - distinguished largely by vowel length - can anybody get stupider than linguists?
I know, feeding a troll--but someone else already did for one of his
up-thread posts anyway.

Number one, that's not necessarily stupid--the language WAS originally
rhotic and then lost it (and in a rhotic dialect those sound much
further apart).

Even if that WERE a case of active stupidity, when you're looking at
words that have existed for over a millennium, it's not the linguists
who constructed them to begin with.

And the language is still a whole lot less dependent upon inflection
than, say, Chinese.

Are you demanding a world where no two words sound similar? There aren't
enough non-similar sounds to cover every concept the language CURRENTLY
needs, let alone any that might be added in the future.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-11 20:32:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
And the [English] language is still a whole lot less dependent upon inflection
than, say, Chinese.
That doesn't sound right.
David Kleinecke
2021-04-11 23:55:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And the [English] language is still a whole lot less dependent upon inflection
than, say, Chinese.
That doesn't sound right.
Surely he means intonation.

Not accurate but good enough for government work
S K
2021-04-12 00:15:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
<snip>
Ireland and Island - distinguished largely by vowel length - can anybody get stupider than linguists?
I know, feeding a troll--but someone else already did for one of his
up-thread posts anyway.
Number one, that's not necessarily stupid--the language WAS originally
rhotic and then lost it (and in a rhotic dialect those sound much
further apart).
Even if that WERE a case of active stupidity, when you're looking at
words that have existed for over a millennium, it's not the linguists
who constructed them to begin with.
And the language is still a whole lot less dependent upon inflection
than, say, Chinese.
Are you demanding a world where no two words sound similar? There aren't
enough non-similar sounds to cover every concept the language CURRENTLY
needs, let alone any that might be added in the future.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
All of them (linguists) don't lie all the time - one of them formulated the vowel-length thingy accurately

"present day English doesn't use vowel length to make new words"

But to say "vowel length isn't phonemic in present day English" is wrong - a "gee whiz" thing these gentry think impresses yokels.
David Kleinecke
2021-04-14 03:19:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by S K
Post by Chrysi Cat
<snip>
Ireland and Island - distinguished largely by vowel length - can anybody get stupider than linguists?
I know, feeding a troll--but someone else already did for one of his
up-thread posts anyway.
Number one, that's not necessarily stupid--the language WAS originally
rhotic and then lost it (and in a rhotic dialect those sound much
further apart).
Even if that WERE a case of active stupidity, when you're looking at
words that have existed for over a millennium, it's not the linguists
who constructed them to begin with.
And the language is still a whole lot less dependent upon inflection
than, say, Chinese.
Are you demanding a world where no two words sound similar? There aren't
enough non-similar sounds to cover every concept the language CURRENTLY
needs, let alone any that might be added in the future.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
All of them (linguists) don't lie all the time - one of them formulated the vowel-length thingy accurately
"present day English doesn't use vowel length to make new words"
But to say "vowel length isn't phonemic in present day English" is wrong - a "gee whiz" thing these gentry think impresses yokels.
In my English there are no long vowel phonemes.

Rather there are six short vowels ( /i/, /e/, /a/, /o/, /u/ and
schwa) and eight diphthongs /iy/. /ey/, /ew/, /ay/, /aw/,
/oy/, /ow/ and /uw/). Such an analysis is slightly
idiosyncratic but typical of many US vowel systems.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-14 14:36:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Kleinecke
In my English there are no long vowel phonemes.
Rather there are six short vowels ( /i/, /e/, /a/, /o/, /u/ and
schwa) and eight diphthongs /iy/. /ey/, /ew/, /ay/, /aw/,
/oy/, /ow/ and /uw/). Such an analysis is slightly
idiosyncratic but typical of many US vowel systems.
And almost exactly what Bloch-Trager-Smith proposed in
the 1940s, except that you have fewer vowels than they
(or GenAm) do. They provided for 9 short vowels, and
each of them can occur with each of the three off-glides
h, w, y. No one idiolect has all 36, of course, but every
phonemic contrast in every dialect is provided for. They
don't say "short," "long," or "diphthong," just "syllabic nucleus."

The apotheosis of the system is in Smith's contribution
to the Bloch Memorial Number of *Language*, "The
Concept of the Morphophone," by Henry Lee Smith, Jr.,
Lg. 43/1 (March 1967): 306-41.

The abstract (and first page) is accessible, though not
copyable, at JSTOR without library access.

Hmm, maybe it was a Northeast conspiracy -- Yale,
Brown, Buffalo respectively. How were they received
in Berkeley? (In Ithaca they were of course orthodoxy.
Halle came to give a talk shortly after SPE was published
and didn't draw a big audience.)
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-04 13:42:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
ˈkɑpi copy
si see
. But actually, the [i] in <see> is long and also even
a bit of a diphthong. Try substituting the [i] from
[ˈkɑpi] into [si]! It's too short!
So isn't it a bit unfortunate when length indications
are missing from many dictionaries?
Even when they are present, they usually only distinguish between
"short" and "long". For your present example, the vowel in "see" is
longer than the one in "copy", but not long enough for me to classify it
as long. I've occasionally felt the need for a "half-long" indicator.
(Additional complication: in some BrE dialects "copy" is [kA.pI] rather
than [kA.pi].
I wondered whether this is so because the reader can determine the
length himself. But I don't know how.
From the location of the stress, which is given in the transcriptions.
Post by Peter Moylan
Probably. Native speakers rarely need that level of help. I would hope
that the length indication is present in dictionaries intended for
non-native speakers, but I can't check that because the only
dictionaries of that kind that I have aren't for English.
The problem is Stefan's incorrigible refusal ever to cite a source.
The Longman's Learners Dictionaries are highly respectable and
one would certainly hope that they provide that sort of sub-phonemic
information.
Post by Peter Moylan
As I understand it, American lexicographers don't indicate length
anyway, because length is never phonemic in AmE.
American lexicographers use macron and breve to indicate
vowel quality, which is labeled "long" and "short" respectively
for historical reasons and moreover is phonetically, though
not phonemically, accurate. (The "long" vowels are the ones
that "say their name":

mate mat
meet met
might mitt
mote Mott
mute mutt
kook cook

because they're the ones that clearly exhibit the Great Vowel
Shift)

BTW do you know of a diagram showing how the Aus and NZ
vowels continued (or reversed?) the Shift to give their present-
day respective systems?
Peter Moylan
2021-04-05 00:38:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
ˈkɑpi copy si see
. But actually, the [i] in <see> is long and also even a bit of a
diphthong. Try substituting the [i] from [ˈkɑpi] into [si]! It's
too short!
So isn't it a bit unfortunate when length indications are missing
from many dictionaries?
Even when they are present, they usually only distinguish between
"short" and "long". For your present example, the vowel in "see"
is longer than the one in "copy", but not long enough for me to
classify it as long. I've occasionally felt the need for a
"half-long" indicator.
(Additional complication: in some BrE dialects "copy" is [kA.pI]
rather than [kA.pi].
I wondered whether this is so because the reader can determine
the length himself. But I don't know how.
From the location of the stress, which is given in the
transcriptions.
I don't see how that follows. Some stressed vowels are short and some
are long.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
BTW do you know of a diagram showing how the Aus and NZ vowels
continued (or reversed?) the Shift to give their present- day
respective systems?
I don't know, but I'd say the first place to look would be Macquarie
University, where there seem to have been lots of studies of Australian
English. The Macquarie dictionary got its start in that university, I
believe.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter Moylan
2021-04-05 00:57:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
BTW do you know of a diagram showing how the Aus and NZ vowels
continued (or reversed?) the Shift to give their present- day
respective systems?
I don't know, but I'd say the first place to look would be Macquarie
University, where there seem to have been lots of studies of
Australian English. The Macquarie dictionary got its start in that
university, I believe.
Possibly relevant: in early white settlement, I believe that Australia
got more Irish people, and NZ got more Scots. Thus, you might need to
look at the differences between Scottish vowels and Irish vowels.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-05 13:37:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
BTW do you know of a diagram showing how the Aus and NZ vowels
continued (or reversed?) the Shift to give their present- day
respective systems?
I don't know, but I'd say the first place to look would be Macquarie
University, where there seem to have been lots of studies of
Australian English. The Macquarie dictionary got its start in that
university, I believe.
Possibly relevant: in early white settlement, I believe that Australia
got more Irish people, and NZ got more Scots. Thus, you might need to
look at the differences between Scottish vowels and Irish vowels.
Descriptions of British dialects are a lot more common on the ground
than descriptions of the dialects of the Southeastern Quadrisphere!
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-04-05 10:26:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
ˈkɑpi copy si see
. But actually, the [i] in <see> is long and also even a bit of a
diphthong. Try substituting the [i] from [ˈkɑpi] into [si]! It's
too short!
So isn't it a bit unfortunate when length indications are missing
from many dictionaries?
Even when they are present, they usually only distinguish between
"short" and "long". For your present example, the vowel in "see"
is longer than the one in "copy", but not long enough for me to
classify it as long. I've occasionally felt the need for a
"half-long" indicator.
(Additional complication: in some BrE dialects "copy" is [kA.pI]
rather than [kA.pi].
I wondered whether this is so because the reader can determine
the length himself. But I don't know how.
From the location of the stress, which is given in the
transcriptions.
I don't see how that follows. Some stressed vowels are short and some
are long.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
BTW do you know of a diagram showing how the Aus and NZ vowels
continued (or reversed?) the Shift to give their present- day
respective systems?
I don't know, but I'd say the first place to look would be Macquarie
University, where there seem to have been lots of studies of Australian
English. The Macquarie dictionary got its start in that university, I
believe.
Probably. I used to know the then Vice-Chancellor of Macquarie
University. He was very proud of the dictionary.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Peter Moylan
2021-04-06 01:05:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If you know where the stress falls in any polysyllabic word, you can
almost always know exactly which vowel to pronounce with which
spelling, throughout the word.
Do you distinguish the noun "delegate" from the verb "delegate"?
Yes, I do: ['del @ ***@t] vs ['del @ "gait]. The verb has secondary stress
on the last syllable. The noun has no secondary stress.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-04-06 07:47:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
If you know where the stress falls in any polysyllabic word, you can
almost always know exactly which vowel to pronounce with which
spelling, throughout the word.
Do you distinguish the noun "delegate" from the verb "delegate"?
on the last syllable. The noun has no secondary stress.
Me too.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
CDB
2021-04-06 12:25:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If you know where the stress falls in any polysyllabic word, you
can almost always know exactly which vowel to pronounce with which
spelling, throughout the word.
Do you distinguish the noun "delegate" from the verb "delegate"?
stress on the last syllable. The noun has no secondary stress.
ObNippinganewtrendinthebud: the marker for secondary stress in that
system is a comma, not a double quote.
Peter Moylan
2021-04-06 11:34:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
If you know where the stress falls in any polysyllabic word, you
can almost always know exactly which vowel to pronounce with
which spelling, throughout the word.
Do you distinguish the noun "delegate" from the verb "delegate"?
stress on the last syllable. The noun has no secondary stress.
ObNippinganewtrendinthebud: the marker for secondary stress in that
system is a comma, not a double quote.
Thanks. I felt that something was wrong with that when I wrote it, but I
couldn't pin down where the error was.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-06 15:20:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
If you know where the stress falls in any polysyllabic word, you can
almost always know exactly which vowel to pronounce with which
spelling, throughout the word.
Do you distinguish the noun "delegate" from the verb "delegate"?
on the last syllable. The noun has no secondary stress.
My question was prompted by whatever had been above it, which
may have cast doubt on the importance of stress assignment in
vowel quality.
Mark Brader
2021-04-04 02:34:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
So isn't it a bit unfortunate when length indications
are missing from many dictionaries?
English doesn't have vowel lengths. "Short" and "long" are just
names for different sounds.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "The brain is amazing when it's amazing, with
***@vex.net | apologies to Robert Biddle." --Steve Summit
Ross Clark
2021-04-04 10:51:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Stefan Ram
So isn't it a bit unfortunate when length indications
are missing from many dictionaries?
English doesn't have vowel lengths. "Short" and "long" are just
names for different sounds.
Not strictly true. Remember that Stefan is talking about phonetics.
English vowel phonemes do have different intrinsic lengths. It's just
that the vowel quality is taken as the primary distinguishing feature,
and the length follows from that.
Ross Clark
2021-04-04 10:15:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
ˈkɑpi copy
si see
. But actually, the [i] in <see> is long and also even
a bit of a diphthong. Try substituting the [i] from
[ˈkɑpi] into [si]! It's too short!
So isn't it a bit unfortunate when length indications
are missing from many dictionaries?
I wondered whether this is so because the reader can
determine the length himself. But I don't know how.
Is the [i] long when it's stressed? Apparently in
ˌjʊɹəˈpiən European
kɹaɪˈtiəɹɪə criteria
aɪˈdiə idea
məˈtiəɹɪəl material
ˈθiəɾɚ theater
mjuːˈziəm museum
ˈpiəni peony
ˈpiənɪst pianist
ˈɹiəli really
, the [i] is stressed, but not long. (Now I am using a
different source that has length indicators.) So, a
tentative rule would be "a stressed [i] is long, unless
ˈviːə via
. And what about unstressed [i], are theses all short? No!
tiːˈviː TV
ɐˈlʌmniː alumnae (a group of female graduates, while
[ɐlˈʌmni] = alumni, a group of male graduates.
Heck, this difference might even be /phonemic/!)
This is nonsense.
Post by Stefan Ram
ænˈtɛniː antennae
ˈeɪpɪsiːz apices
ˌɑːɹkiːˈɑːlədʒi archaeology
ˈæθliːt athlete
wiːkˈɛnd weekend
. So, are there any rules that allow one to tell when
an [i] is long?
Why do you ask a question like that, when you have just worked out most
of the rules by yourself? You could make further progress by adding the
notion of secondary stress to your analysis. Or you could look at a
book on English phonetics.
Post by Stefan Ram
If not, I am afraid, the dictionaries need to change
their procedures and start including length markers!
Fortunately this will not be necessary.
Stefan Ram
2021-04-04 15:36:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Clark
Why do you ask a question like that, when you have just worked out most
of the rules by yourself?
What I wrote was only a first, tentative guess. I do not think
that I have worked out the rules.

But even if someone would be sure to have worked out correct
rules by himself, it is always good to ask for feedback because
others might find errors in such rules.
Post by Ross Clark
Or you could look at a
book on English phonetics.
I did that before I posted. Found nothing on that question.
Ross Clark
2021-04-05 10:58:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by Ross Clark
Why do you ask a question like that, when you have just worked out most
of the rules by yourself?
What I wrote was only a first, tentative guess. I do not think
that I have worked out the rules.
But you have worked out some, as I just said -- probably most of what is
likely to be of practical use to a language learner.
All you need to add is the notion of secondary stress, and don't expect
every instance of /i/ to be either "long" or "short". There will be a
range of lengths, depending on stress, initial/medial/final position,
and following segments.
Post by Stefan Ram
But even if someone would be sure to have worked out correct
rules by himself, it is always good to ask for feedback because
others might find errors in such rules.
Post by Ross Clark
Or you could look at a
book on English phonetics.
I did that before I posted. Found nothing on that question.
Well, a couple of books I have here:

Daniel Jones, An Outline of English Phonetics (8th ed, 1956)
pp.232-236 "Length of English Vowels"
(Good news: each vowel doesn't have a completely different set of
rules.)

Gimson's Pronunciation of English (6th ed, 2001)
pp.94-96 "Vowel Length"
Stefan Ram
2021-04-05 18:29:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thanks for the references! - I found that some sources have
sections labeled "vowel length", but there address other
issues than the question how to tell when a vowel is long.
For example, they might discuss how to pronounce long vowels
(given one already knows they are long).
Post by Ross Clark
Daniel Jones, An Outline of English Phonetics (8th ed, 1956)
pp.232-236 "Length of English Vowels"
(Good news: each vowel doesn't have a completely different set of
rules.)
Jones indeed gives five rules on vowel length on the pages
232 - 234 of this edition:

|The vowels ... (i:, ɑ:, ɔ:, u:, ə:) are longer than the
|other English vowels in similar situations, i.e., when
|surrounded by the same sounds, and pronounced with the same
|degree of stress ...

|II. The 'long' vowels (and diphthongs) are shorter when
|followed by a voiceless consonant than when final or followed
|by a voiced consonant ...

|III. The 'long' vowels (and diphthongs) are also shorter
|before a nasal consonant or l followed in turn by a voiceless
|consonant ...

|IV. 'Long' vowels (and diphthongs) in stressed syllables are
|also shorter when an unstressed syllable immediately follows
|in the same word ...

|V. The 'long' vowels (and diphthongs) are shorter in
|unstressed than in stressed syllables

. It seems that in those five rules Jones assumes that one
already knows whether a vowel is long and then only treats
some refinements about how long exactly it is. So, these
rules work will not answer my question.
Post by Ross Clark
Gimson's Pronunciation of English (6th ed, 2001)
pp.94-96 "Vowel Length"
So far I have not been able to take a look at that work.
Ross Clark
2021-04-05 22:36:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
Thanks for the references! - I found that some sources have
sections labeled "vowel length", but there address other
issues than the question how to tell when a vowel is long.
For example, they might discuss how to pronounce long vowels
(given one already knows they are long).
Post by Ross Clark
Daniel Jones, An Outline of English Phonetics (8th ed, 1956)
pp.232-236 "Length of English Vowels"
(Good news: each vowel doesn't have a completely different set of
rules.)
Jones indeed gives five rules on vowel length on the pages
|The vowels ... (i:, ɑ:, ɔ:, u:, ə:) are longer than the
|other English vowels in similar situations, i.e., when
|surrounded by the same sounds, and pronounced with the same
|degree of stress ...
|II. The 'long' vowels (and diphthongs) are shorter when
|followed by a voiceless consonant than when final or followed
|by a voiced consonant ...
|III. The 'long' vowels (and diphthongs) are also shorter
|before a nasal consonant or l followed in turn by a voiceless
|consonant ...
|IV. 'Long' vowels (and diphthongs) in stressed syllables are
|also shorter when an unstressed syllable immediately follows
|in the same word ...
|V. The 'long' vowels (and diphthongs) are shorter in
|unstressed than in stressed syllables
. It seems that in those five rules Jones assumes that one
already knows whether a vowel is long and then only treats
some refinements about how long exactly it is. So, these
rules work will not answer my question.
But that _is_ your question! The confusion results from "long" being
used in two different ways:

1) English vowel _phonemes_ can be divided into short and long ones. As
I explained elsewhere in this thread, the division is historically
based, but is still reflected in different distribution of the two classes.
This is what Jones means by 'long' in the above rules, and as he
explains on pp.232-3, he's referring to the vowels in "heed", "hard",
"hoard", "food" and "heard". The first of those is the phoneme that you
were originally asking about.

2) Instances of a given phoneme will differ in their actual length
(duration), according to a number of factors, already mentioned here.
You were looking for rules to explain the variation in length of the
"heed" vowel. That's what Jones's rules do, though they generalize over
the whole class of 'long' vowels and diphthongs.

If your question was something completely different, please try to clarify.
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by Ross Clark
Gimson's Pronunciation of English (6th ed, 2001)
pp.94-96 "Vowel Length"
So far I have not been able to take a look at that work.
Stefan Ram
2021-04-05 22:59:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Clark
If your question was something completely different, please try to clarify.
There seem to be different types of dictionaries out there:

type A (a certain dictionary):

heed hiːd
party ˈpɑːr.ti

type B (Longman, 4th):

heed hid
party ˈpɑrti

type C (AHD, 3rd):

heed hēd
party pär′tē

(I simplified the notation of the "t" sound in "party" a bit).
For British English, en-GB, it's the same, except for the
[r] sound missing in British English "party".

You see that A gives me a bit more of information regarding
the long "i" in "heed" than B and C. I like dictionaries of
type A!

Now, my question is: given a dictionary of type B or C, can
I somehow reconstruct the information that is missing using
not dictionary A but rules?
Ross Clark
2021-04-06 00:37:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by Ross Clark
If your question was something completely different, please try to clarify.
heed hiːd
party ˈpɑːr.ti
heed hid
party ˈpɑrti
heed hēd
party pär′tē
(I simplified the notation of the "t" sound in "party" a bit).
For British English, en-GB, it's the same, except for the
[r] sound missing in British English "party".
You see that A gives me a bit more of information regarding
the long "i" in "heed" than B and C. I like dictionaries of
type A!
Now, my question is: given a dictionary of type B or C, can
I somehow reconstruct the information that is missing using
not dictionary A but rules?
Each dictionary will tell you what its phonemic symbols mean. Thus you
will learn that <i:>, and <i> and <ē> all represent the same English
vowel, which is a long vowel. So there's no missing information in "heed".

I suspect your A is merely following Daniel Jones, who represents final
unstressed /i:/ as <i>, without the length mark -- something he does not
do with other long vowels in that position (echo, Hindu). This is a
sub-phonemic feature of RP. The conditions I have just stated would
enable you to get that "missing" information from either of the other
dictionaries.
Stefan Ram
2021-04-06 00:59:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Stefan Ram
heed hiːd
party ˈpɑːr.ti
...
Post by Ross Clark
Each dictionary will tell you what its phonemic symbols mean. Thus you
will learn that <i:>, and <i> and <ē> all represent the same English
vowel, which is a long vowel. So there's no missing information in "heed".
I believe that <iː> represents a different phonetic reality,
viz., [ɪˑi], than <i>, which is merely [i].

For example, remember someone saying the one-word sentence "See?"
(="Told you so!"). There is a half-long [ɪ] before the [i]!
Or try saying it that way, and see if it sounds familiar.

(I am assuming American English here, because I don't know other
variants as well.)
Ross Clark
2021-04-06 02:30:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
...
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Stefan Ram
heed hiːd
party ˈpɑːr.ti
...
Post by Ross Clark
Each dictionary will tell you what its phonemic symbols mean. Thus you
will learn that <i:>, and <i> and <ē> all represent the same English
vowel, which is a long vowel. So there's no missing information in "heed".
I believe that <iː> represents a different phonetic reality,
viz., [ɪˑi], than <i>, which is merely [i].
Of course it does. So what?
Post by Stefan Ram
For example, remember someone saying the one-word sentence "See?"
(="Told you so!"). There is a half-long [ɪ] before the [i]!
Or try saying it that way, and see if it sounds familiar.
(I am assuming American English here, because I don't know other
variants as well.)
There's nothing special about "See?". Diphthongic realizations of /i:/
are common.
Stefan Ram
2021-04-06 02:51:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Stefan Ram
I believe that <iː> represents a different phonetic reality,
viz., [ɪˑi], than <i>, which is merely [i].
Of course it does. So what?
Well sometimes, especially as someone who is learning
English and is not a native speaker, you want to have
some means (for example, a rule) to know which of those
two sounds to use when your dictionary uses the same
symbol for both.
Post by Ross Clark
There's nothing special about "See?". Diphthongic realizations of /i:/
are common.
In the sentence "See?", "see" often is produced emphatically
with a slow, elongated pronunciation, so that one can hear
the diphthong more clearly. The same occurs sometimes with
"hello" "helloooʊ".
Ross Clark
2021-04-06 05:09:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Stefan Ram
I believe that <iː> represents a different phonetic reality,
viz., [ɪˑi], than <i>, which is merely [i].
Of course it does. So what?
Well sometimes, especially as someone who is learning
English and is not a native speaker, you want to have
some means (for example, a rule) to know which of those
two sounds to use when your dictionary uses the same
symbol for both.
I've just stated one: In RP, final /i:/ is [i].
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by Ross Clark
There's nothing special about "See?". Diphthongic realizations of /i:/
are common.
In the sentence "See?", "see" often is produced emphatically
with a slow, elongated pronunciation, so that one can hear
the diphthong more clearly. The same occurs sometimes with
"hello" "helloooʊ".
Yes, and you can do the same with "Soooo?", "Threeee?" "Meeee?" and many
more. This might be pedagogically useful. I wouldn't put it in a dictionary.
Ross Clark
2021-04-06 05:38:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Stefan Ram
I believe that <iː> represents a different phonetic reality,
viz., [ɪˑi], than <i>, which is merely [i].
Of course it does. So what?
   Well sometimes, especially as someone who is learning
   English and is not a native speaker, you want to have
   some means (for example, a rule) to know which of those
   two sounds to use when your dictionary uses the same
   symbol for both.
I've just stated one: In RP, final /i:/ is [i].
Make that *unstressed* final /i:/. The vowel in "see", "flea", "agree"
and so on should be the same as in "heed".
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Ross Clark
There's nothing special about "See?". Diphthongic realizations of /i:/
are common.
   In the sentence "See?", "see" often is produced emphatically
   with a slow, elongated pronunciation, so that one can hear
   the diphthong more clearly. The same occurs sometimes with
   "hello" "helloooʊ".
Yes, and you can do the same with "Soooo?", "Threeee?" "Meeee?" and many
more. This might be pedagogically useful. I wouldn't put it in a dictionary.
Stefan Ram
2021-04-07 15:59:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
For example, remember someone saying the one-word sentence "See?"
(="Told you so!"). There is a half-long [ɪ] before the [i]!
Or try saying it that way, and see if it sounds familiar.
Just heard "See?" pronounced by the actor Traylor Elizabeth
Howard (* 14. Juni 1966 in Orlando, Florida) in a TV series
from 2005. It sounded like:

si̞ˑi̝

That is, an [s], then an open [i], that was not as open as
[ɪ] and half-long or even long, and finally a close [i],
that was short and even much less intense than the previous
vocoid. Total duration of the whole word: 0.47 s.

(I was not able to read the spectrum, as I was unable to
clearly identify F1 and F2.)
Stefan Ram
2021-04-05 17:39:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
. So, are there any rules that allow one to tell when
an [i] is long?
An attempt to answer my question:

There might be exceptions to the following rules, but
I think I can use them as a basis. The rules seem to
be overlapping, so I think that the more special rule
then applies. For some cases, the source did not speak
about vowel length, so I added my guesses below.

Mostly quoted from a source, but sometimes worded or
abbreviated by me:

closed syllables

The vowel in a closed syllable is short.
at, lid, mud, fan, ten, spin, lamp, ...

(comments by S.R.: what about "week"? Answer:
see below, under "vowel pairs". what about
"athlete"? see below under "vowel-consonant-e".
But what about the final vowel in "parentheses"
(plural)? It is long, yet the syllable is closed!)

open syllables

The vowel in an open syllable is long.
so, be, I, no, go, me, ...

(comment by S.R.: then both vowels in "copy" must
be long, but the final [i] is not the [ɪˑi] sound,
or is it?)

vowel-consonant-e syllables

The e is silent, and the vowel is long.
cute, home, late, note, tune, ...

vowel-r syllables

(This is written by me [S.R.] and intended to be valid
for American English:) The vowel and the <r> merge into
an [ɚ], Kirshenbaum [R], and I don't know whether this
sound is classified as "long", I guess is.)
her, herd, fur, burn, term, bird, urge, turn, ...

However, in the case of <ar>, <or>, two sounds are
retained (S.R.: ... and the first one is long?)
park, pork, for, born,

vowel pairs in syllables

(S.R.: These make a sound that is a diphthong or a long?)
sail, each, feet, boat, green, teach, noun, cow, ...

(The source classified "cow" here, event thought there
is no pair of vowels in the usual spelling.)

consonant-l-e syllables (final stable syllables)

(S.R.: I guess the vowel is always short here?)
bubble, uncle, candle, ruffle, angle, ankle, purple, ...
Ross Clark
2021-04-05 22:48:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by Stefan Ram
. So, are there any rules that allow one to tell when
an [i] is long?
There might be exceptions to the following rules, but
I think I can use them as a basis. The rules seem to
be overlapping, so I think that the more special rule
then applies. For some cases, the source did not speak
about vowel length, so I added my guesses below.
Mostly quoted from a source, but sometimes worded or
What is this mysterious source??
Post by Stefan Ram
closed syllables
The vowel in a closed syllable is short.
at, lid, mud, fan, ten, spin, lamp, ...
see below, under "vowel pairs". what about
"athlete"? see below under "vowel-consonant-e".
But what about the final vowel in "parentheses"
(plural)? It is long, yet the syllable is closed!)
Doesn't this suggest that the first statement is just wrong?
Post by Stefan Ram
open syllables
The vowel in an open syllable is long.
so, be, I, no, go, me, ...
(comment by S.R.: then both vowels in "copy" must
be long, but the final [i] is not the [ɪˑi] sound,
or is it?)
It is. And the first syllable is closed.
Post by Stefan Ram
vowel-consonant-e syllables
The e is silent, and the vowel is long.
cute, home, late, note, tune, ...
That's a spelling rule. What's it doing in here?
Post by Stefan Ram
vowel-r syllables
(This is written by me [S.R.] and intended to be valid
for American English:) The vowel and the <r> merge into
an [ɚ], Kirshenbaum [R], and I don't know whether this
sound is classified as "long", I guess is.)
her, herd, fur, burn, term, bird, urge, turn, ...
However, in the case of <ar>, <or>, two sounds are
retained (S.R.: ... and the first one is long?)
park, pork, for, born,
And in RP, even though the <r> is not pronounced, the <Vr> sequences
above are long.
Post by Stefan Ram
vowel pairs in syllables
(S.R.: These make a sound that is a diphthong or a long?)
sail, each, feet, boat, green, teach, noun, cow, ...
(The source classified "cow" here, event thought there
is no pair of vowels in the usual spelling.)
Again you make things more difficult by muddling up spelling and phonetics.
Post by Stefan Ram
consonant-l-e syllables (final stable syllables)
(S.R.: I guess the vowel is always short here?)
bubble, uncle, candle, ruffle, angle, ankle, purple, ...
Or, alternatively, there's no vowel, rather a syllabic [l].
Loading...