Phonemic distinctions and ESL students

The Aussie /i:/ (as in the "ee" in "fifteen") is characterised by a really long onglide so I guess this doesn't count as an example of phonemic vowel length for us but maybe for Mxsmanic it might ... maybe ... or at least perhaps it should.

"Wouldn't you call /i/ and /i(:)/ different phonemes?"

According to EPD, they are not different phonemes.

"Fifteen oats" vs "fifty notes"
I thought it was a good example, but then I noticed that there is a difference in stress.

/'fif 'ti: 'nOuts/ vs. /'fif ti: 'nOuts/

EPD is the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary, right? Well, I guess they know what they're talking about. But if /i(:)/ is not a phoneme in its own right, is it an allophone of /i/ or of /i:/. I'd be tempted to say that it'd have to be an allophone of /i:/ as suggested by your observance above, Tom, but here's something I read to the contrary.

"Although it does not change the meaning if you say /'veri/ instead of /'veri(:)/ (both i's are the same phoneme), the 'middle i' sounds much more natural."

http://www.antimoon.com/how/cepd-review.htm

[i] and [i:] are not separate phonemes in standard English; they are allophones of the same phoneme, /i/. Put more simply, vowel length is not phonemic in English. In a phonemic transcription of English, you don't indicate vowel length. In a more narrow phonetic transcription, you might.

There still seems to be some confusion on just exactly what constitutes a phoneme.

Let's not turn this into another "Is vowel length phonemic in English?" thread. Sorry if I'm the one reponsible.

"There still seems to be some confusion on just exactly what constitutes a phoneme." says Mxsmanic. On whose part? I understand the definition in terms of minimal pairs. I've only attempted to bring to light some of the difficulties it leaves us with.

Several people here regularly make statements that seem to betray confusion over the correct definition of a phoneme.

Jim,
I see no contradiction. I wrote that both i's are the same phoneme, i.e. there is no phonemic difference between them.

Tom,

Here's what I mean:

1) You wrote:

"'Fifteen oats' vs 'fifty notes'
"I thought it was a good example, but then I noticed that there is a difference in stress.

"/'fif 'ti: 'nOuts/ vs. /'fif ti: 'nOuts/"

Thus /i(:)/ is an allophone of /i:/.

2) You wrote:

"Although it does not change the meaning if you say /'veri/ instead of /'veri(:)/ (both i's are the same phoneme), the 'middle i' sounds much more natural."

Thus /i(:)/ is an allophone of /i/.

3) If /i(:)/ is an allophone of both /i:/ and /i/, then /i:/ and /i/ are allophones.

4) There are many minimal pairs of /i:/ and /i/, e.g. "ship"/"sheep", "dip"/"deep", "bid"/"bead", etc. thus /i:/ and /i/ cannot be allophones.

There's your contradiction. The problem, I think, is with claim 2. The meaning isn't changed, true, but the phoneme is. Pronounce the word "bath" as /ba:th/ or as /b@th/ and you don't change any meaning but this doesn't imply that /@/ and /a:/ are the same phoneme.

I NEED TO FIND OUT DE SYLLABLE DIVITION FOR THE FOLLOWING WORDS.
1. ABOLITION
2. ABET
3. ABERRRATION
4. ABDICATE
5. SCHOOL
6. ARROGANT.
AND ALSO FIND OUT THE PHONEMIC TRANSCRIPTION FOR EACH WORDS.

Need to find the "Caps Lock" key and a good dictionary.

Jim,

I'm sorry, I didn't notice the contradiction at first.

I've just realized that for some speakers [i(:)] is an allophone of [i] (some British speakers), while for others it is an allophone of [i:] (American speakers and some British speakers).

Older British dictionaries transcribe "very" as /'veri/ (with the same vowel as in 'bit').