Vowel length has not been phonemic in English for centuries. While some aberrations may still exist that are exceptions to this rule, in any standard pronunciation of English, vowel length is irrelevant.
Phonetically write "BOUTIQUE"
Mxsmanic,
If vowel length has not been phonemic in English for centuries, then why do I pronounce ''bade'' as /b{d/, ''bad'' as /b{:d/, ''merry'' as /meri/, ''Mary'' as /me:ri/, ''Sirius'' as /sIri@s/ and ''serious'' as /sI:ri@s/?
If vowel length has not been phonemic in English for centuries, then why do I pronounce ''bade'' as /b{d/, ''bad'' as /b{:d/, ''merry'' as /meri/, ''Mary'' as /me:ri/, ''Sirius'' as /sIri@s/ and ''serious'' as /sI:ri@s/?
<<Vowel length has not been phonemic in English for centuries. While some aberrations may still exist that are exceptions to this rule, in any standard pronunciation of English, vowel length is irrelevant.>>
You're ignoring a lot of English dialects that *do* have phonemic vowel length.
<<Mxsmanic,
If vowel length has not been phonemic in English for centuries, then why do I pronounce ''bade'' as /b{d/, ''bad'' as /b{:d/, ''merry'' as /meri/, ''Mary'' as /me:ri/, ''Sirius'' as /sIri@s/ and ''serious'' as /sI:ri@s/?>>
Because Mxsmanic believes General American and RP are the only two dialects that exist in the world.
You're ignoring a lot of English dialects that *do* have phonemic vowel length.
<<Mxsmanic,
If vowel length has not been phonemic in English for centuries, then why do I pronounce ''bade'' as /b{d/, ''bad'' as /b{:d/, ''merry'' as /meri/, ''Mary'' as /me:ri/, ''Sirius'' as /sIri@s/ and ''serious'' as /sI:ri@s/?>>
Because Mxsmanic believes General American and RP are the only two dialects that exist in the world.
In addition, Mxsmanic has a very narrow view of the world. He has trouble seeing beyond his microcosm, which limits human contact to his family of books.
<<In addition, Mxsmanic has a very narrow view of the world. He has trouble seeing beyond his microcosm, which limits human contact to his family of books.>>
Which is all quite ironic considering he's an ESL teacher.
Which is all quite ironic considering he's an ESL teacher.
<<Vowel length has not been phonemic in English for centuries. While some aberrations may still exist that are exceptions to this rule, in any standard pronunciation of English, vowel length is irrelevant.>>
While vowel length is non-phonemic in GA and *traditional* RP, what you're saying here is a gross generalization. I'd have to consider Australian English to be a standard pronunciation of English, and vowel length is certainly phonemic there ("butter" [bat@] versus "barter" [ba:t@]). Vowel length is also phonemic for an increasing number of British people ("bed" [bEd] versus "bared" [bE:d]).
While vowel length is non-phonemic in GA and *traditional* RP, what you're saying here is a gross generalization. I'd have to consider Australian English to be a standard pronunciation of English, and vowel length is certainly phonemic there ("butter" [bat@] versus "barter" [ba:t@]). Vowel length is also phonemic for an increasing number of British people ("bed" [bEd] versus "bared" [bE:d]).
You do all realize that you are fighting about something that the vast majority of the world isn't even aware of, right? You've spent two pages on "phonemic vowel length" going "doesn't exist" -- "does too!" -- "does not!"
Sheesh.
Sheesh.
<<vast majority of the world isn't even aware of, right?>>
Actually, people (and I mean the general population, not linguists) who speak languages and dialects with phonemic vowel length *are* aware of such differences. Such things as vowel length may seem inconsequential to someone whose phonology doesn't depend on it (such as yours or mine) but for those with phonemic vowel-length they definitely are aware of such things. Of course your comment makes sense for you because from your point of view vowel-length doesn't really matter, but it is an important thing in many languages (and some dialects of English), so it's not like people here are fighting over some obscure theory with no real relevance to real life. Quite the opposite.
Actually, people (and I mean the general population, not linguists) who speak languages and dialects with phonemic vowel length *are* aware of such differences. Such things as vowel length may seem inconsequential to someone whose phonology doesn't depend on it (such as yours or mine) but for those with phonemic vowel-length they definitely are aware of such things. Of course your comment makes sense for you because from your point of view vowel-length doesn't really matter, but it is an important thing in many languages (and some dialects of English), so it's not like people here are fighting over some obscure theory with no real relevance to real life. Quite the opposite.
I'm not saying the actual phenomenon of phonemic vowel length has no importance, I'm saying arguing about it for two pages doesn't.
<<I'm not saying the actual phenomenon of phonemic vowel length has no importance, I'm saying arguing about it for two pages doesn't.>>
Tell that to Mxsmanic who feels the incessant need to argue the matter.
Tell that to Mxsmanic who feels the incessant need to argue the matter.
Well, if you guys are enjoying it, don't mind me; carry on. Just seemed like it was getting a little old.
Uriel : t'es dans un site de linguistique. C'est normal que les gens discutent de phonétique et de phonologie dans les moindres détails. Le contraire serait étonnant et décevant.
<<Uriel : t'es dans un site de linguistique. C'est normal que les gens discutent de phonétique et de phonologie dans les moindres détails. Le contraire serait étonnant et décevant.>>
Exactement ;)
Exactement ;)