I think in casual speech I'd usually say [Int@`"Vpt], but in more careful speech I'd be more likely to say [Int@"r\Vpt].
Surround
Previous page Pages: 1 2 3
What about "for real"? Do you ever pronounce it as if were "freal"? I pronounce it [fP\Io].
No, I don't think I ever elide the vowel completely. I generally don't give it the full vowel either, so I have [f3`r\Io] or [f3`v\Io]
<<I generally don't give it the full vowel either, so I have [f3`r\Io] or [f3`v\Io]>>
By [3`] do you mean [@`], or do you actually have the "fur" vowel there?
By [3`] do you mean [@`], or do you actually have the "fur" vowel there?
While we're on the [@`] thread, what about "tire" and "tower"? For me those are homophonous with "tar" as [ta:].
I suppose it probably is [@`]. The difference for me is basically just stressed vs. unstressed; I don't think there's any difference in vowel quality.
As for 'tire' and 'tower', I have a similar pronunciation, but only in casual speech. Both are often [ta@`], while 'tar' is [tAr\] (or perhaps [tQr\]; I still haven't figured out exactly what the quality of my low back vowel is).
As for 'tire' and 'tower', I have a similar pronunciation, but only in casual speech. Both are often [ta@`], while 'tar' is [tAr\] (or perhaps [tQr\]; I still haven't figured out exactly what the quality of my low back vowel is).
<<(or perhaps [tQr\]; I still haven't figured out exactly what the quality of my low back vowel is).>>
[tQr\] would sound extremely odd to me indeed.
[tQr\] would sound extremely odd to me indeed.
<<I still haven't figured out exactly what the quality of my low back vowel is).>>
My low back vowel in "dock" is [A] and it can become [a:] variably merging with the [a:] in "dark". The RP vowel [Q] sounds distinctly different to me and it would sound extremely odd to me in a word like "tar".
My low back vowel in "dock" is [A] and it can become [a:] variably merging with the [a:] in "dark". The RP vowel [Q] sounds distinctly different to me and it would sound extremely odd to me in a word like "tar".
I don't use [Q] in "tar", but I wouldn't say that it sounds "extremely odd" to me. It actually sounds pretty conceivable to me when I say it as a phonetic exercise - just a rounded version of the [A] that I would use there.
So Philip, do you generally 'cot' and 'cart'? I wasn't aware of any father-bother merging accents in England (though I've heard of some that have an unrounded LOT set).
Using [Q] for the merged low-back vowel in Canadian English seems to be fairly common. I've only just started figuring this out for myself, but I seem to have [A] before /r/, but [Q] or even [O] in some other situations. You can listen to me on the thread "Accent sample". My LOT/PALM/THOUGHT set doesn't sound like the RP LOT vowel to me, but that may just be due to RP [Q] being short, whereas my accent doesn't have phonemic length as far as I can tell.
[Q:] is apparently the standard realisation of START in South African English, according to Wikipedia.
Using [Q] for the merged low-back vowel in Canadian English seems to be fairly common. I've only just started figuring this out for myself, but I seem to have [A] before /r/, but [Q] or even [O] in some other situations. You can listen to me on the thread "Accent sample". My LOT/PALM/THOUGHT set doesn't sound like the RP LOT vowel to me, but that may just be due to RP [Q] being short, whereas my accent doesn't have phonemic length as far as I can tell.
[Q:] is apparently the standard realisation of START in South African English, according to Wikipedia.
<<Sorry, should be: "do you generally distinguish 'cot' and 'cart'?">>
In casual speech both are [ka:?] while in more formal speech they are distinguished as [kA?] (for "cot") and [ka:?] (for "cart").
In casual speech both are [ka:?] while in more formal speech they are distinguished as [kA?] (for "cot") and [ka:?] (for "cart").
Previous page Pages: 1 2 3