Mjd, for you is one of the vowel sounds tensed into [E@] or [I@]?
Cap and Cab (Are A's in these words read differently?)
Previous page Pages: 1 2
Mxsmanic writes "Differences in vowel length are not phonemic in English;". Well, he's just plain wrong. They are phonemic for those with the BAD-LAD split such as speakers of Australian English.
However for me both "cab" and "cap" have the short /{/ the same phoneme in "back" as opposed to the long /{:/ which you find in "bag".
Phonetically speaking, yes, the vowel in "cab" may be realised longer than that in "cap" but I would not recomend ESL students worry too much about it.
Mjd, do tell us more.
However for me both "cab" and "cap" have the short /{/ the same phoneme in "back" as opposed to the long /{:/ which you find in "bag".
Phonetically speaking, yes, the vowel in "cab" may be realised longer than that in "cap" but I would not recomend ESL students worry too much about it.
Mjd, do tell us more.
Not this again. Who cares what Mxsmanix thinks - he doesn't claim to know everything.
I pronounce cab longer than cap, with the same vowel.
I pronounce cab longer than cap, with the same vowel.
Brennus obviously has trouble reading other responses:
mjd wrote:
"The two vowel sounds sound completely different in my accent. It's not just a matter how long or short the sound is. "
Not everyone uses the same vowel in "cab" and "cap".
mjd wrote:
"The two vowel sounds sound completely different in my accent. It's not just a matter how long or short the sound is. "
Not everyone uses the same vowel in "cab" and "cap".
Jim and Guest are right and Brennus and Mxsmanic are mistaken. Not everyone has the same vowels in "cab" and "cap" (and I'm not even talking about length difference). Mjd is a clear example of such a case. Many people in the Northeast of the US have a class of words with [e@] from historical /{/ while still currently maintaining /{/ in other words. Brennus, while we in the Western US have the same vowels there that doesn't mean everyone does.
<<No. This is another one of these How-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin?- type propositions which are a waste of time to think about.>>
Please stop trying to shoot down valid linguistic inquiries simply because you are not familiar enough with the background information to answer them accurately, Brennus.
Calling such questions a "waste of time" is not what forum members, much less a moderator, should be doing. That is unacceptable.
<<No. This is another one of these How-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin?- type propositions which are a waste of time to think about.>>
Please stop trying to shoot down valid linguistic inquiries simply because you are not familiar enough with the background information to answer them accurately, Brennus.
Calling such questions a "waste of time" is not what forum members, much less a moderator, should be doing. That is unacceptable.
I would say I would find it very difficult, if not impossible to pronounce the A in "cab" exactly the same as that in "cap". The former is slightly longer, perhaps because it is followed by a voiced consonant. However, the difference is very small and unimportant in my opinion.
<<I would say I would find it very difficult, if not impossible to pronounce the A in "cab" exactly the same as that in "cap". The former is slightly longer, perhaps because it is followed by a voiced consonant. However, the difference is very small and unimportant in my opinion.>>
You're right, but of course that's only accurate for a dialect like mine or yours where there's no qualitative difference between the two, just a length difference. Perhaps a better pair could be found that both had unvoiced stops at the end so the added issue of the voiced consonant causing a longer vowel could be eliminated. One example I know of is the difference for some Northeastern US dialects between pairs like "can" the verb (assuming the stressed position and not the unstressed one) and "can" the noun. I can't remember which is which but one is [e@] and the other is [{] for such speakers.
You're right, but of course that's only accurate for a dialect like mine or yours where there's no qualitative difference between the two, just a length difference. Perhaps a better pair could be found that both had unvoiced stops at the end so the added issue of the voiced consonant causing a longer vowel could be eliminated. One example I know of is the difference for some Northeastern US dialects between pairs like "can" the verb (assuming the stressed position and not the unstressed one) and "can" the noun. I can't remember which is which but one is [e@] and the other is [{] for such speakers.
<<One example I know of is the difference for some Northeastern US dialects between pairs like "can" the verb (assuming the stressed position and not the unstressed one) and "can" the noun. I can't remember which is which but one is [e@] and the other is [{] for such speakers.>>
I checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ae-tensing#Bad-lad_split . [e@] is used for "can" (the noun, and the derived verb "to can"), and [{] is used for stressed "can" (the auxiliary verb). Another minimal pair for such dialects would be "halve" [he@v] versus stressed "have" [h{v].
A phonemic split like that is found in Philadelphia and New York, but not in Boston. In Boston, /{/-tensing is non-phonemic; /{/ is tensed before all instances of /n/ and /m/ (so both versions of "can" would be [k_he@n]); but it remains [{] in all other situations.
Nonetheless, the NYC/Philly phonemic split occurs in some of the same places that the trap-bath split does. Thus, although "can" (noun and noun-derived verb) and stressed "can" (auxiliary verb) are homophonous as [k_he@n] in Boston, a traditional Boston accent would nonetheless distinguish between "halve" [hav] and stressed "have" [h{v].
I checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ae-tensing#Bad-lad_split . [e@] is used for "can" (the noun, and the derived verb "to can"), and [{] is used for stressed "can" (the auxiliary verb). Another minimal pair for such dialects would be "halve" [he@v] versus stressed "have" [h{v].
A phonemic split like that is found in Philadelphia and New York, but not in Boston. In Boston, /{/-tensing is non-phonemic; /{/ is tensed before all instances of /n/ and /m/ (so both versions of "can" would be [k_he@n]); but it remains [{] in all other situations.
Nonetheless, the NYC/Philly phonemic split occurs in some of the same places that the trap-bath split does. Thus, although "can" (noun and noun-derived verb) and stressed "can" (auxiliary verb) are homophonous as [k_he@n] in Boston, a traditional Boston accent would nonetheless distinguish between "halve" [hav] and stressed "have" [h{v].
(Sorry, that URL would more accurately be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ae-tensing#.C3.A6-tensing .)
Brennus wrote:
>>No. This is another one of these How-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin?<<
Scary, that's classic Mxsmanic style wording. Mxsmanic has a disciple.
>>No. This is another one of these How-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin?<<
Scary, that's classic Mxsmanic style wording. Mxsmanic has a disciple.
<<I checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ae-tensing#Bad-lad_split . [e@] is used for "can" (the noun, and the derived verb "to can"), and [{] is used for stressed "can" (the auxiliary verb). Another minimal pair for such dialects would be "halve" [he@v] versus stressed "have" [h{v].
A phonemic split like that is found in Philadelphia and New York, but not in Boston. In Boston, /{/-tensing is non-phonemic; /{/ is tensed before all instances of /n/ and /m/ (so both versions of "can" would be [k_he@n]); but it remains [{] in all other situations.
Nonetheless, the NYC/Philly phonemic split occurs in some of the same places that the trap-bath split does. Thus, although "can" (noun and noun-derived verb) and stressed "can" (auxiliary verb) are homophonous as [k_he@n] in Boston, a traditional Boston accent would nonetheless distinguish between "halve" [hav] and stressed "have" [h{v].>>
Cool--thanks for the information. That sounds right.
<<Brennus wrote:
>>No. This is another one of these How-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin?<<
Scary, that's classic Mxsmanic style wording. Mxsmanic has a disciple. >>
Maybe, but I've seen Brennus use that phrase before so I don't think of it as Mxsmanical in nature.
A phonemic split like that is found in Philadelphia and New York, but not in Boston. In Boston, /{/-tensing is non-phonemic; /{/ is tensed before all instances of /n/ and /m/ (so both versions of "can" would be [k_he@n]); but it remains [{] in all other situations.
Nonetheless, the NYC/Philly phonemic split occurs in some of the same places that the trap-bath split does. Thus, although "can" (noun and noun-derived verb) and stressed "can" (auxiliary verb) are homophonous as [k_he@n] in Boston, a traditional Boston accent would nonetheless distinguish between "halve" [hav] and stressed "have" [h{v].>>
Cool--thanks for the information. That sounds right.
<<Brennus wrote:
>>No. This is another one of these How-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin?<<
Scary, that's classic Mxsmanic style wording. Mxsmanic has a disciple. >>
Maybe, but I've seen Brennus use that phrase before so I don't think of it as Mxsmanical in nature.
Previous page Pages: 1 2