Because Dave has a regional accent.
My pronunciation for "pure" changes, so it doesn't always rhyme with "fewer, ie. when souded in one syllable.
Because Dave has a regional accent.''
But Jim said that Dave is just imagining his regional accent. I was wondering what makes Jim think that Dave's just imagining his regional accent.
I assume that it is because he makes no distinction.
Well, I pronounce ''cot'' and ''caught'' the same but never think that anyone that says they pronounce them differently is just imagining that they do.
Why do I get the feeling that having this conversation with you is a little like talking to a brick wall?
You may have a couple of recordings and transcripts of Australian speakers in front of you, what do you think this proves? Let me quote something from page 3.
"Nothing happens for each pair in my mind. I pay attention only to vowel position, not vowel length. Proof of this is that I have to listen carefully to hear differences in vowel length, whereas differences in vowel quality are easier to discern—the reason being that vowel length has no effect on meaning and thus one tends to ignore it."
You've made it clear that you just don't have the ear for vowel length. So is vowel length really "not phonemic in their speech" or have you just overlooked or ignored it?
You have the words of a couple of Australians in front of you telling you that vowel length is phonemic in AusE. If you take the time to read the paper by Felicity Cox which Mick gave the link to, you'll have similar words from a professional linguist. Those words are based on a study of 120 Australians. That link again:
That there are certain vowels distinguised by length is something I (and presumably Mick) have known from an early age. The work of these university linguists simply confirm what we already knew ... confirm what you, for some reason beyond my fathoming, refuse to accept.
"In any case, ESL students want to learn English that can be understood everywhere," certainly they do I'm not arguing against this. If anything, this is what Mick and I are arguing for. Fail to get vowel length right and being misunderstood is exactly what you risk.
"... any pronunciation of English that attempts to make vowel length phonemic is not in this category." AusE does not "attempt" this: it's simply a natural feature of the dialect. Do you have trouble understanding AusE because of this feature? I doubt that Aussies would be the only ones who'd have trouble understanding an ESL student taught to ignore vowel length.
How do you distingiush "fifty notes" from "fifteen oats", if not by vowel length? Sure, in slow and careful speach there may be a pause between words but not when speaking at a normal tempo. What about "Tracy" verses "tray C"? The phonemes /i:/ and /i(:)/ (Tom's alphabet) are distinct and distinguished mainly by length even in your beloved so-called "standard" dialects.
In any case you're probably completely unconcerned by what we are saying. And, as for us, we'll keep talking our dirty sub-standard Aussie English where vowel length is phonemic.
Smith and Jim,
I'm not imagining anything. It's my accent. In my accent ''break'' and ''brake'' are not homophones, and ''fewer'' and ''pure'' rhyme. Why do people think my accent is imaginary?
People need to stop thinking that accents other than their own are only imaginary. There are different accents out there.
I'm not about to go into the details of why I don't believe this person going by the name "Dave" ... at least not here. He's not the topic of this thread.
And Mxsmanic is totally wrong that vowel length is not phonemic in English.
''I'm not about to go into the details of why I don't believe this person going by the name "Dave" ... at least not here. He's not the topic of this thread.''
Well, here's a question,
Why do ''Rhon'' and ''steve'' agree with him that those words are pronounced differently?
I myself, like you, pronounce them the same way, but I'm not sure if that's true for everyone.
Are ''steve'', ''Rhon'' and ''Dave'' the same person? It sure doesn't seem like it to me. ''Dave'' writes better than ''steve''.
I have no where else to ask the question and it's silly to start a new thread about a person visiting this forum. Also, I doubt it that Dave would like it if I started a new thread just about this question.
I have my theory but I'm not going into it here, as I'm said.
Anyway, I'll say something about this topic. I disagree the vowel length is not phonemic in all English dialects.
Well, can you answer this question though? This question is,
Is everything Dave says about the Australian accent his own imagination? Is that ''pure/fewer'' vowel merger that he says he makes true about the Australian accent or his imagination? Is that thing he says about ''h'' being pronounced [heitS] in Australia true or just his imagination?
In this question I'm not asking about him but about the Australian dialect. I'm an American and so wouldn't know as much as you know about the Australian dialect.
I'm not asking for any details of ''why you don't believe'', just, ''what you don't believe.''
Smith, Jim is only imagining that ''book'' is not pronounce ''bwauk''. Everyone knows tha ''bwauk'' is the pronounciation of ''book'' not [bu:k].
Jim is just such a stupid and a fool.
Willy, no one pronounces ''book'' as ''bwauk'' (unless they are you).
And no one says "... is just such a stupid and a fool." except Willy of course. LOL
Gotta love this diversity of accents!