The pronunciation is /butik/ in English. Vowel length is phonemtically irrelevant in English, so it need not be marked except in narrow transcriptions (but for narrow transcriptions, you need to specify the precise variant of English pronunciation as well).
Phonetically write "BOUTIQUE"
I may not agree with you on much, Mxsmanic, but I agree that in GA, RP, and my accent, vowel length is not phonemic. Thus I prefer not to indicate vowel length in my phonetic transcriptions.
<<The pronunciation is /butik/ in English. Vowel length is phonemtically irrelevant in English>>
Some English dialects have phonemic vowel length, but not most varieties of North American English (including my dialect/idiolect).
Some English dialects have phonemic vowel length, but not most varieties of North American English (including my dialect/idiolect).
Mxsmanic,
Still pushing that old "Vowel length is phonemtically irrelevant in English" line, ay? As I've agrued before, it is relevant in my Aussie dialect.
/b}:ti:k/
Still pushing that old "Vowel length is phonemtically irrelevant in English" line, ay? As I've agrued before, it is relevant in my Aussie dialect.
/b}:ti:k/
Plus, people do tend to use different vowel lengths. You might as well acknowledge that, and not pretend it doesn't exist, or it's "irrelevant".
That's like saying STRESS is irrelevant in English because it isn't really phonemic as context can distinguish verb from noun, in the few instances where it is likely to occur. But it is an important characteristic of English that people use to help convey, if not clarify meaning.
<<Still pushing that old "Vowel length is phonemtically irrelevant in English" line, ay? As I've agrued before, it is relevant in my Aussie dialect.>>
I, at least, don't maintain that vowel length is phonemically irrelevant in *all* of English - it just happens to be in the three accents I know the most about: GA, RP, and my own. I'm aware that Australian English, and certain other dialects, have phonemic vowel length.
I, at least, don't maintain that vowel length is phonemically irrelevant in *all* of English - it just happens to be in the three accents I know the most about: GA, RP, and my own. I'm aware that Australian English, and certain other dialects, have phonemic vowel length.
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Of course, one must also remember that just because there may not be phonemic vowel length in a dialect does not mean that *realized* vowel length does not distinguish word pairs that would otherwise be indistinguishable by quality alone. One good example of such is the pair "latter" / "ladder", which are identical quality-wise in most NAE dialects, but which may be distinguished by realized vowel length, "latter" using a short vowel and "ladder" using a long vowel. Likewise, "winner" and "winter" may be distinguished by vowel length in NAE dialects that reduce intervocalic /nt/ before an unstressed vowel to [n] rather than [4~], with "winter" using a short vowel and "winner" using a long vowel. Yes, these are examples of allophony, but they are examples of *distinctive* allophony, where allophony of other phonemes preserves distinctions that have been otherwise lost, generally through neutralization or elision.
<<I, at least, don't maintain that vowel length is phonemically irrelevant in *all* of English - it just happens to be in the three accents I know the most about: GA, RP, and my own. I'm aware that Australian English, and certain other dialects, have phonemic vowel length.>>
That's arguable for RP. As I said the other day, Oxford dictionaries now use /E/ and /E:/ for the vowels of "merry" and "Mary" respectively. They also use /@/ for schwa and /@:/ for the vowel of "bird", so they arguably have two length contrasts.
Personally, I prefer the Oxford transcription to the traditional one with /e@/ or /E@/ - that vowel just doesn't seem like a diphthong to me - but, like most British people, I'm not really an RP speaker.
That's arguable for RP. As I said the other day, Oxford dictionaries now use /E/ and /E:/ for the vowels of "merry" and "Mary" respectively. They also use /@/ for schwa and /@:/ for the vowel of "bird", so they arguably have two length contrasts.
Personally, I prefer the Oxford transcription to the traditional one with /e@/ or /E@/ - that vowel just doesn't seem like a diphthong to me - but, like most British people, I'm not really an RP speaker.
<<As I said the other day, Oxford dictionaries now use /E/ and /E:/ for the vowels of "merry" and "Mary" respectively.>>
Yeah, I've seen /E:/ used to transcribe that vowel, and I've read that many British people do use a monophthong rather than a diphthong there, so in that case it would be a length distinction.
<<They also use /@/ for schwa and /@:/ for the vowel of "bird", so they arguably have two length contrasts.>>
Most sources that I've seen use /3:/ rather than /@:/ for the RP "bird" vowel. It's hard to tell which symbol is more accurate - there may or may not be a length distinction there. (Maybe they're just doing away with one IPA symbol to make their transcription simpler.)
I've also read that new Oxford dictionaries use /a/ rather than /{/ for the "bat" vowel, and (rather strangely) /VI/ rather than /AI/ for the "price" vowel. Is this true?
Yeah, I've seen /E:/ used to transcribe that vowel, and I've read that many British people do use a monophthong rather than a diphthong there, so in that case it would be a length distinction.
<<They also use /@/ for schwa and /@:/ for the vowel of "bird", so they arguably have two length contrasts.>>
Most sources that I've seen use /3:/ rather than /@:/ for the RP "bird" vowel. It's hard to tell which symbol is more accurate - there may or may not be a length distinction there. (Maybe they're just doing away with one IPA symbol to make their transcription simpler.)
I've also read that new Oxford dictionaries use /a/ rather than /{/ for the "bat" vowel, and (rather strangely) /VI/ rather than /AI/ for the "price" vowel. Is this true?
<<I've also read that new Oxford dictionaries use /a/ rather than /{/ for the "bat" vowel, and (rather strangely) /VI/ rather than /AI/ for the "price" vowel. Is this true?>>
I remember seeing /VI/ in an Oxford dictionary recently. I don't remember seeing /a/ for /{/ but I was just glancing thru it--it's entirely possible. Plus, /a/ really is the most prevalent pronunciation for that vowel these days in many British dialects.
I remember seeing /VI/ in an Oxford dictionary recently. I don't remember seeing /a/ for /{/ but I was just glancing thru it--it's entirely possible. Plus, /a/ really is the most prevalent pronunciation for that vowel these days in many British dialects.
The use of /VI/ here is interesting, as it is reminiscent of the raised version of /aI/ in many North American English dialects, which I normally transcribe as [@I]. So if many English English-speakers do consistently use /VI/ here, it is almost as if they have a raised (in the Canadian Raising sense of such) /aI/ for *all* instances of such.
<<So if many English English-speakers do consistently use /VI/ here, it is almost as if they have a raised (in the Canadian Raising sense of such) /aI/ for *all* instances of such.>>
I'm just not sure that many English English speakers do actually use /VI/ there. I know that Estuary uses /AI/ rather than /aI/, which I think may be what Oxford is trying to represent. But I had never heard of /VI/ being used there until I read about the Oxford dictionaries' new transcription scheme. This site, for instance ( http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/ipa-english-uni.htm ), criticizes Oxford's use of /VI/ because it relflects neither RP nor Estuary speech.
I'm just not sure that many English English speakers do actually use /VI/ there. I know that Estuary uses /AI/ rather than /aI/, which I think may be what Oxford is trying to represent. But I had never heard of /VI/ being used there until I read about the Oxford dictionaries' new transcription scheme. This site, for instance ( http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/ipa-english-uni.htm ), criticizes Oxford's use of /VI/ because it relflects neither RP nor Estuary speech.