Phonetically write "BOUTIQUE"

Uriel   Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:47 am GMT
But if people say, "Hi! I'm so-and-so, from such-and-such, and vowel length IS phonemic in my dialect", how much can you really argue with them?
Travis   Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:57 am GMT
Of course, one can argue about them by asking for specific minimal pairs (or failing that, near-minimal pairs), specific *narrow* transcriptions for various words in various phonological environments and like, and so on, to see what the actual phonology is in place. Remember, it would not be surprising at all if most of the population was relatively ignorant of the details of the phonologies of their specific dialects.
Guest   Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:06 am GMT
"But if people say, "Hi! I'm so-and-so, from such-and-such, and vowel length IS phonemic in my dialect", how much can you really argue with them?"

That's why it's annoying when someone comes along with a sweeping claim -- a gross generalization in this case -- to argue the point blindly because of some fixated and idealized notion.
Travis   Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:09 am GMT
>>That's why it's annoying when someone comes along with a sweeping claim -- a gross generalization in this case -- to argue the point blindly because of some fixated and idealized notion.<<

Which, of course, is why people like a certain you know who are horribly irritating.
Kirk   Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:36 am GMT
<<That's why it's annoying when someone comes along with a sweeping claim -- a gross generalization in this case -- to argue the point blindly because of some fixated and idealized notion.>>

I wonder who we could ever be talking about? .......... ;)

<<Which, of course, is why people like a certain you know who are horribly irritating.>>

Indeed!
Jim   Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:26 am GMT
Another thing you can do is direct you opponent to a webpage where a professional linguist argues your point for you. This is what we did last time Mxsmanic piped up with this nonsense.

http://www.shlrc.mq.edu.au/~felicity/vowel_description22.pdf

http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/units/ling210-901/phonetics/vowelgraphs/AusE_Monophthongs.html

http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/units/ling210-901/phonetics/vowelgraphs/NZE_Monophthongs.html

Vowel length is phonemic in Australian English. However, it doesn't have any effect on the likes of Mxsmanic. He just turns around and calls the dialect you and the other twenty million people in your country speak an aberration.

This my-English-is-standard-and-yours-is-an-aberration rubbish is just that: rubbish. Australian English is as much a standard as there can exist.

Nonetheless let's set asside these so-called aberrations and consider only dialects where there is no phonemic vowel length. Mxsmanic wants to say that if vowel length is not phonemic then it is irrelavant.

This too is nonsense. You might as well instruct your ESL students to forget gestures because they are not phonemic. You might as well claim that the volume of your voice is not important.

Even where length might not be phonemic it is still an important cue to what phoneme it is that the speaker is trying to pronounce. This is, of course, especially important when it comes to ESL students.

I could go on but, as I say, I've said it all before.
Uriel   Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:39 am GMT
Is Mxsmanic a professional linguist?
Kirk   Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:44 am GMT
<<Is Mxsmanic a professional linguist?>>

*chuckles* are you kidding?