0
Usenet Posted 22 years ago
Usage
Vowel lengths in English
Not long ago someone an Australian, I think maybe Peter Moylan? remarked in this forum that to Americans vowel-length is non-phonemic, and he thought that was odd. I'm an American and I had always thougth vowel-length is non-phonemic in English.
I've wondered at times what those colons in British dictionary pronunciations meant. I now suspect they're about phonemics vowel lengths.
Can someone confirm or disconfirm my suspicion?
More importantly, can someone give a reasonable account of the role of phonemic differences in vowel length in those versions of English that have them? Mike Hardy
I've wondered at times what those colons in British dictionary pronunciations meant. I now suspect they're about phonemics vowel lengths.
Can someone confirm or disconfirm my suspicion?
More importantly, can someone give a reasonable account of the role of phonemic differences in vowel length in those versions of English that have them? Mike Hardy
Top answer
[nq:1]Not long ago someone an Australian, I think maybe Peter Moylan? [/nq] I suspect it's a primarily non-rhotic phenomenon. Hence "dead" vs "dared", "ken" vs "cairn" etc.
- [nq:1]Not long ago someone an Australian, I think maybe Peter Moylan?
- [/nq] I suspect it's a primarily non-rhotic phenomenon.
- Hence "dead" vs "dared", "ken" vs "cairn" etc.
- I know that some non-rhotic UK accents use a schwa in these sorts of examples, but I suspect the vowel length is also longer.
- Not sure how or if non-rhotic Americans distinguish these pairs.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
59 Answers
0
[nq:1]Not long ago someone an Australian, I think maybe Peter Moylan? remarked in this forum that to Americans vowel-length is non-phonemic, and he thought that was odd.[/nq]
I suspect it's a primarily non-rhotic phenomenon.
Hence "dead" vs "dared", "ken" vs "cairn" etc.
I know that some non-rhotic UK accents use a schwa in these sorts of examples, but I suspect the vowel length is als
I suspect it's a primarily non-rhotic phenomenon.
Hence "dead" vs "dared", "ken" vs "cairn" etc.
I know that some non-rhotic UK accents use a schwa in these sorts of examples, but I suspect the vowel length is als
00
[nq:1]Not long ago someone an Australian, I think maybe Peter Moylan? remarked in this forum that to ... of the role of phonemic differences in vowel length in those versions of English that have them? Mike Hardy[/nq]
Are you referring to the phenomenon of English vowels changing sound near the end because the mouth is changing shape? Like "O" becoming more "U-like" as the mouth closes, or "A"
Are you referring to the phenomenon of English vowels changing sound near the end because the mouth is changing shape? Like "O" becoming more "U-like" as the mouth closes, or "A"
00
[nq:1]In Italian or Spanish, for example, the sound is cut off before this begins to happen, so the vowels are short and pure.[/nq]
Same in Polish. So, is it reasonable to classify "o" as a vowel, since it is composed of two different sounds? :-)
Best regards
Piotr Wyderski
Same in Polish. So, is it reasonable to classify "o" as a vowel, since it is composed of two different sounds? :-)
Best regards
Piotr Wyderski
00
[nq:2]In Italian or Spanish, for example, the sound is cut off before this begins to happen, so the vowels are short and pure.[/nq]
[nq:1]Same in Polish. So, is it reasonable to classify "o" as a vowel, since it is composed of two different sounds? :-)[/nq]
In some words, in some dialects, it's pronounced as a single vowel sound, at other times it's a diphthong. In both cases, it would sti
[nq:1]Same in Polish. So, is it reasonable to classify "o" as a vowel, since it is composed of two different sounds? :-)[/nq]
In some words, in some dialects, it's pronounced as a single vowel sound, at other times it's a diphthong. In both cases, it would sti
00
[nq:2]Same in Polish. So, is it reasonable to classify "o" as a vowel, since it is composed of two different sounds? :-)[/nq]
[nq:1]In some words, in some dialects, it's pronounced as a single vowel sound, at other times it's a diphthong. In both cases, it would still be classified as a vowel, because it's a single letter.[/nq]
Surely not? The spelling has nothing to do with the case. "Hi!
[nq:1]In some words, in some dialects, it's pronounced as a single vowel sound, at other times it's a diphthong. In both cases, it would still be classified as a vowel, because it's a single letter.[/nq]
Surely not? The spelling has nothing to do with the case. "Hi!
00
[nq:2]In Italian or Spanish, for example, the sound is cut off before this begins to happen, so the vowels are short and pure.[/nq]
[nq:1]Same in Polish. So, is it reasonable to classify "o" as a vowel, since it is composed of two different sounds? :-)[/nq]
As Jess pointed out, it's considered a vowel since it's a single letter but the way we say it is impure.
The two sounds happen bec
[nq:1]Same in Polish. So, is it reasonable to classify "o" as a vowel, since it is composed of two different sounds? :-)[/nq]
As Jess pointed out, it's considered a vowel since it's a single letter but the way we say it is impure.
The two sounds happen bec
00
[nq:2]Same in Polish. So, is it reasonable to classify "o" as a vowel, since it is composed of two different sounds? :-)[/nq]
[nq:1]As Jess pointed out, it's considered a vowel since it's a single letter but the way we say it is ... as the mouth closes, the "o" sound flattens to an "ooh" sound due to the rounded shape of the mouth.[/nq]
Actually the 'o' vowel in words like "no" and "go" et
[nq:1]As Jess pointed out, it's considered a vowel since it's a single letter but the way we say it is ... as the mouth closes, the "o" sound flattens to an "ooh" sound due to the rounded shape of the mouth.[/nq]
Actually the 'o' vowel in words like "no" and "go" et
00
[nq:1]The two sounds happen because as the mouth closes, the "o" sound flattens to an "ooh" sound due to the rounded shape of the mouth.[/nq]
Frankly speaking, I am not convinced. The best
counterexample is that in many other languages
there is no problem with "pure" vowels. The correct pronunciation of the "u" part needs active support of the speaker, at least in my case, i.e. it's ea
Frankly speaking, I am not convinced. The best
counterexample is that in many other languages
there is no problem with "pure" vowels. The correct pronunciation of the "u" part needs active support of the speaker, at least in my case, i.e. it's ea
00
[nq:2]Same in Polish. So, is it reasonable to classify "o" as a vowel, since it is composed of two different sounds? :-)[/nq]
[nq:1]In some words, in some dialects, it's pronounced as a single vowel sound, at other times it's a diphthong. In both cases, it would still be classified as a vowel, because it's a single letter.[/nq]
No, it's not a letter. Letters occur in written languages.
[nq:1]In some words, in some dialects, it's pronounced as a single vowel sound, at other times it's a diphthong. In both cases, it would still be classified as a vowel, because it's a single letter.[/nq]
No, it's not a letter. Letters occur in written languages.
00
[nq:1]Pronunciation occurs in spoken languages. The term you want is 'phoneme', and the English phoneme /o/, like all English tense vowel phonemes (/i/, /e/, /o/, /u/), is usually pronounced as a diphthong.[/nq]
How is /e/ a diphthong? The name of the vowel "a" obviously is, as is true for i, o & u, but I unless I misunderstand what you mean, 'e' doesn't have any change in vowel quality. Indee
How is /e/ a diphthong? The name of the vowel "a" obviously is, as is true for i, o & u, but I unless I misunderstand what you mean, 'e' doesn't have any change in vowel quality. Indee
0
Related Questions