Does the Dark L affect the quality of the scwha when it precedes this consonant?
I think it does because it sounds a lot like the (^) vowel in IN[SULT] and [MUL]TIPLY which are affected by the Dark L.
The ''u'' sound in ''bud'' and the ''u'' sound in ''bulb'' are definitely not the same sound. The dark ''l'' does change the vowel in ''bulb''.
What about the scwha? Does the Dark L affect it also?
"Bud" vs. "bulb": two completely different vowels for me.
bud = /b^d/
bulb = /bOulb/
Jim, what about CUT and CULT?
And does the DARK L affect the quality of the schwa when it precedes it? Like it does with the (^) vowel.
Yes, The dark ''l'' does change the quality of the schwa vowel sound when it precedes it. The ''a'' sound in ''soda'' and the ''e'' sound in ''shovel'' are two distinct schwa sounds.
Jim, what about these words,
Jim, ''bub'', ''cold'' and ''bulb'' all have three distinct sounds for me.
[^] when it occurs before the dark ''l'' does not sound at all like the [^] in ''cut'' but doesn't sound quite the same as the ''o'' in ''cold''. I think it's something in between [^] and [Ou].
''Jim, what about these words,''
i.e., how do you pronounce those words?
"Cut" vs. "cult": exactly the same thing goes on here.
cut = /k^t/
cult = /kOult/
It's the same /Oul/ that you find in "cold" for me. Also it's the same in "salt", "insult", "multiply" and each of the words in Smith's long list except "dull" and "hull" (which I pronounce /d^l/ and /h^l/). Perhaps this is just my accent but I don't pronounce them with /^l/.
As for "table" and "noble" these are normally pronounced /teib.l/ and /nOub.l/ i.e. with a syllabic consonant not /teib..l/ and /nOub..l/ so it's not a question of the /../'s being affected by the /l/.
However, this effect is quite common. Phonemes are realised differently depending on the surrounding sounds. The effect is called coarticulation and it is quite noticible when a vowel is followed by /l/.
Jim, It only happens when vowels are followed by the dark /l/. When vowels are followed by the light ''l'' they sound quite normal.
''As for "table" and "noble" these are normally pronounced /teib.l/ and /nOub.l/ i.e. with a syllabic consonant not /teib..l/ and /nOub..l/ so it's not a question of the /../'s being affected by the /l/.''
Sp, then is ''label'' a better example of a word with [..l]. i.e. [..] followed by the dark ''l''.
<<Yes, The dark ''l'' does change the quality of the schwa vowel sound when it precedes it. The ''a'' sound in ''soda'' and the ''e'' sound in ''shovel'' are two distinct schwa sounds.
I believe this. I suspected this all along. :-) I thought I was going insane because I asked a similar question before and the unanimous reply was that no, the schwa sounded identical in all cases. And to my ears this wasn't the case like you've pointed out Smith. Thank you.
''Perhaps this is just my accent but I don't pronounce them with /^l/.''
Jim, In most accents words with the diagraph ''ul'' are pronounced /^l/. You seem to be one of a minority that doesn't pronounce ''ul'' as /^l/.
For me ''cult'', ''cold'' and ''salt'' have three different vowel sounds.
Jim, do you pronounce ''bald'' and ''bold'' the same way?
What about these words, How do you pronounce them?
Jim, So, is it just something about the Australian accent that makes /^l/ when it occurs before a consonant to become [Oul].
Jim, So are you saying that /^l/, /Oul/ and /o:l/ merge in Australia?
Do you pronounce ''hall'', ''hole'' and ''hull'' all the same way? All like [hOul]?
Do you also pronounce these pairs of words the same way?