Talk:Australian English phonology/Archive 2

Variation between /aː/ and /æ/
I have changed the values of demand and grasp to 99% for Adelaide. I am Adelaide born - I and many of my friends pronouce demand and grasp with an /æ/.
 * That's all very well, but (a) adding information based on how you and your friends speak generally counts as unverified original research, (b) those figures are from a (fairly small, I think, looking at the numbers) sample of speakers in the different cities, and the quoted findings are 100% long A for both of those words in Adelaide - we can't change the findings of that study.--JHJ 11:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

L-Vocalisation
The article states "Australian English lacks some innovations in Cockney since the settling of Australia, such as the use of a glottal stop in some places where a /t/ would be found, th-fronting, h-dropping, and l-vocalisation." meaning that l-vocalisation is absent in Australian English. In my experience, it's extremely common ... 122.108.167.147 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Ben P122.108.167.147 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, though it's far from universal. I was private schooled (in Adelaide) where it was thought of as unclean pronunciation, so the habit is corrected at a young age for people in my social group.--121.45.73.208 (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What about Perth?
The table "Variation between /æ/ and /aː/", based on Crystal does not include Perth/WA. Does this reflect Crystal's work, or is it an accidental omission? Grant65 (Talk) 06:15, August 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, but I think my mother has a copy of that Encyclopedia, so I might be able to find out. Other people might be able to find out sooner than I can though. (Given it's an encyclopedia, Crystal probably didn't do the original research, though ;) — Felix the Cassowary 12:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I went to my mother's today, and had a look at it. Perth is indeed missing, including in the paragraph of discussion. It cites a chapter of a book as its source, and I think we should probably mention it—but I'm not sure how best to do secondary citing here. The original work was Bradley, D. (1991). ‘ and in Australian English.’ In J. Cheshire (Ed.) English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 227–34. If anyone can find that source, it would probably pay to see if it mentions anything about Perth, including why it was omitted. —Felix the Cassowary 12:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrong Symbols?
It's crept back in again. It's not &  but  &. Jimp 28Aug05


 * See discussion at Talk:Australian English. (Well, you already know it's there, but other people who come in later mightn't.) — Felix the Cassowary 12:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I was going to put the link here to but hadn't got round to it. Then, on the other hand, why not move that discussion here? Jimp 29Aug05

Well now it's all here. Jimp 11oct05


 * Perhaps as a result of this discussion (and below), the text mentioned that /a:/ is sometimes also described as /a:/ (same for /a/). I removed that (and if sometimes also /upside-down-a/ is used, let's give references, right?). Jalwikip (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

/a/ & /aː/
G'day Felix,

I'm all for your splitting the article in two however I don't agree with your using /a/ and /aː/. It's all well and good to use /a/ and /aː/ amongst those who know that it really is and   but do we assume this? What would the point be of writing the article if it's only for those who already know AusE phonology?

There's also the question of consistency. You haven't used /r/ but. You haven't used /uː/ but. Isn't better to use the correct IPA transcription?

I'd already changed these back to &  before I read your reasoning however, for the reasons I've set out here, I'm not going to change them back.

Jimp 28Aug05


 * I didn't use /r/ because I just copy-pasted from the RP English page and removed the unvoiced [w] sound, not used in Australian English. I didn't even know I hadn't used /r/! :)


 * As for not using /u:/, but, that's because, well, the correct sound is , according to the standard we're using.


 * However, using /a/ and /a:/ for the open central vowels isn't wrong: In fact, it's what you're meant to do. They're fully open: opener than /æ/, so they aren't nearly-open central vowels, so [6] isn't the ‘correct IPA transcription’. Therefore, we have to pick one glyph over the other, and IPA principles state that if we have to pick two glyphs, we should pick the simpler one. Every other language which has only one fully open vowel uses /a/, in spite of the fact that the real sound is actually almost always [a_-] or [6_o], and not [a]. Why should we be different for AuE? (Hungarian, in fact, based on the graph at the Hungarian language page, uses /a/ for a phoneme even further back and higher than Australian equivalent.)


 * Also, my reading indicates that the normal IPA transcriptions that are used in the literature are either Harrington-Cox-Evans with /a/ (i.e. what I put up), or M.-D. (which is many times more common, anyway; even though it's less phonetically accurate).


 * I'm thinking of drawing a diagram like they have at Dutch language showing the positions of the vowels (after all, almost no language has the vowels in the cardinal positions—based on the Dutch language vowel chart, in fact, AuE  is further forward that Dutch /y/, and AuE /3:/ is nowhere near IPA [3:]). If we do that, would you object less?


 * — Felix the Cassowary 11:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

If this is what you're meant to do then why don't Harrington, Cox & Evans (1997)? Look at the graph: it's clearly and   (and so it's labelled) it may not right on but it's closer than  and. Jimp 28Aug05


 * The fact that it's closer to the [&#592;] isn't relevant to the intended use of IPA [a] vs IPA [&#592;]. IPA [a] is clearly intended for use as a low front or low central vowel, whereas IPA [&#592;] is intended for use as, essentially, a second lower schwa. Look e.g. at Template:Vowels or open front unrounded vowel, where it says:
 * This symbol (i.e. [a] &mdash;FC) very frequently used for an open central unrounded vowel, and this usage is accepted by the International Phonetic Association. Since no language distinguishes front from central open vowels, a separate symbol is not considered necessary. If required, the difference may be specified with the central diacritic, [ä].


 * I'm not Harrington, Cox, or Evans, so I don't know why they chose [6] and not [a]. Incidentally, their IPAification appears to have been based on Clark's (1989), and he used . Try finding that in an IPA chart. (Cox, actually, uses and /a/ in what she's published since then.) And, like I've seen, all the printed stuff I've seen apart from HCE (1997) and the website has used either the M.-D. system (as Cox does) or HCE-but-with-/a/.


 * (Btw, I fixed your links—for some reason, the syntax for links is different from the syntax for wikilinks, just to confuse everyone.)


 * — Felix the Cassowary 12:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not Harrington, Cox nor Evans either and I can't read their minds, however, if I might be allowed to hazzard a guess, I'd assume that they've used exactly because of this fact that it's closer to this than it is to.

Is this irrelevant? I'll go so far as to say that it is relevant ... at least for a phonetic transcription. Sure, if it's a phonemic transcription, then it doesn't matter. Perhaps the material you refer to is exactly that: phonemic transcriptions only.

But which are we using here: a phonemic or a phonetic transcription? Both, of course, but don't we want to tell readers how we actually pronounce things? We do, don't we? Thus, I argue, we should use a phonetic transcription based on the closest IPA symbols and, to avoid confusion, base our phonemic transcription on that.

Isn't this the reason that they used rather than  on the RP page? You speak of our using standard (with respect to ). Are they using the same sandard on the RP page? Who are we? I don't know of this standard. The standard I'm using is the Mac. Uni. website the links to which you've fixed up for me (thanks for that).

Just an asside ... shouldn't we move this discussion to Talk:Australian English phonology?

Jimp 29Aug05

Felix,

You link to the Wikipedia vowel template and the page on the open front unrounded vowel where there is an a in brackets in the central position. This is interesting but why is it absent from the IPA vowel chart?

It seems as if we agree that the vowels in hut and heart are closer to X-SAMPA /6/ and /6:/ than they are to /a/ and /a:/ respectively, as the [http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/speech/phonetics/phonetics/vowelgraphs/AusE_Monophthongs.html Mac. Uni. vowel chart] indicates. You've refered to it as a fact.

What we disagree on is the relevance of this fact. Is this not the kind of fact a reader might be looking for in an encyclopædia? Where better in this encyclopædia to find this fact than Australian English phonology? I argue that this is a fact which should be included here.

You mention the fact that other languages with only one fully open vowel use /a/. You ask why AusE should be different. My answer is that, no, it should be no different ... if it's a phonemic transcription only. You mention Harrington-Cox-Evans' use of /a/ in the literature. All I can guess is that they're giving only a phonemic transcription in this literature.

What I argue is that we should be giving a phonetic transcription. Don't we want to give the whole story? Using /a/ doen't give the whole story. This goes for. But I'm just repeating myself now. What we need is a show of hands. I wonder who with me & who's with you.

Jimp 31Aug05


 * I'm replying on Talk:Australian English phonology; you're right, that's the more appropriate palec. — Felix the Cassowary 11:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

and the expression "good on you" or "although both of these are - something seems to be missing between "or" and "although". --Oop 23:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about not responding to your other comment there, I'll do them both now (I must've missed it in my watchlist).

A central [a] is missing from the IPA vowel chart because that's not its cardinal position. Its cardinal position is indeed front. That doesn't mean it's incorrect to use it in non-cardinal positions. The IPA doesn't contain symbols for every possible vowel; nor even every vowel used in a language; only for those which contrast. No language contrasts a front open from a mid open from a back open vowel, so there's no need to include three fully open vowels; languages can therefore use /a/ to phonemically represent a sound that is phonetically in a centralised position (and indeed, the IPAssociation does so).

If we're going for a phonetic transcription, we're going to have to mark a lot more—the [] allophone of ; the allophone of ; the fact that  is more like (ahem)  or  depending on how liberally we wish to interpret the symbols; the fact that  is more like  or. I don't think this level of detail is necessary, and in any case it's misleading as you'd have to either still include the discussion, or diacritics, because the only Australian vowel that's on (or rather, has a mean value that's basically on) the cardinal pronunciation is /oː/.

Secondly, the purpose of the symbols, there at least, are more to serve as a guide to interpreting pronunciations; that's why the section on vowels begins by discussing the fact that there's two ways of writing Australian phonemes. It's not meant to be, and I don't think it should be, a guide to the phonetics of Australian English. Firstly, because to do that with symbols would not do justice to the phonetics, even dressed up in diacritics. Secondly because we can do that more comprehensibly using graphics and textual descriptions, as I've already included.* Thirdly because if we write as  as would be phonetically justifiable/justified, we'd serve only to confuse people when they actually do read phonemic transcriptions written in Australian English. And finally because if people do want to know the actual phonetic pronunciations of Australian English rather than graphical, textual or symbolic approximations, they're better served by travelling to our fair country, or failing that going to the primary literature.

* Regarding the graphic, I've also included the GIMP source file on the Wikimedia Commons site—follow the links from it—so if you do want to change the character I've used for /a(ː)/, you can without too much difficulty, assuming you have the GIMP. The font I've used is Gentium.

When you say that perhaps the material I've been reading that uses /a/ rather than /ɐ/ is phonemic material only, to some extent you're right. It includes stuff that's been using broad phonetic transcriptions because the precise phonetics of /a/ isn't the matter. But stuff that is concerned with the exact phonetics of /a/ has either used diacritics to symbolise the low central nature of the vowel or, more often, has been using textual and graphical descriptions, including references to the frequencies of the formants of the vowel. Because that's the only way you can capture the phonetics of a vowel on paper.

Regarding standards, I don't mean that there's some standards body that dictates or even suggests appropriate IPA characters for Australian English. I mean a standard as in the normal way of doing something. In Australian English, when length is marked, the normal way of referring to the vowel phoneme in ‘food’ is with, so therefore, is the ‘standard’ glyph.

— Felix the Cassowary 11:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Good Points
You put forth some very good points, Felix. Also, the vowel chart you've created serves to negate most of my concerns. I'd been worrying that the use of /a/ would indicate quite fronted vowels but the graph makes the fact that these are central clear enough. I'm not about to go changing things back to /6/ (in fact I've just done the opposite). At least not until I have a bunch of others (who seem to know what they're talking about) who also would prefer /6/. Thanks for the graph. It would be nice to have one for diphthongs I'd do it myself if only I had time to figure out how. Anyway, all in all, I think you've done a good job on this page. Jimp 1Sep05


 * Thanks. I'd like to do one for the diphthongs too, but it's also a case of figuring out how... I don't really know if the Gimp can draw likes with arrows (I've copy-and-pasted the one for /i:/ from the Dutch diphthongs chart, but I don't know that that's suitable in general). I might see what I can do tonight though. — Felix the Cassowary 03:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And voilà! (The arrows look a little wonky, but it’s still good, I insist) — Felix the Cassowary 10:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice graph. Don't worry about the wonkyness of the arrows: we've got to live with pixels. Is /i:/ really a diphthong though? It certainly has a significant on glide but I though diphthongs had to have two targets. I'll see if I can't dig up that article I read ... here it is. Cox found this long on glide but only one target. Also the [http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/speech/phonetics/phonetics/ausenglish/auseng_vowels.html Mac. Uni. site] I've refered to lists /i:/ as a monophthong. Jimp 2Sep05


 * I don’t know whether an onset is enough to make it phonetically a diphthong, but this is suggestive:


 * Two vowels classified as monophthongs may exhibit diphthongal qualities. ' is typically diphthongal in character in that it has a variable onglide for most Australian speakers. ' can sometimes be realised with onglide but is more typically monophthongal.


 * Phonemically, I think it only makes sense. In many (but not all) contexts the only distinctive feature between and  is length, so length has to be the thing that distinguishes them (in fact, in almost all the contexts where there's another feature that would distinguish them—e.g. word finally— isn't permitted). So phonemically the length contrast is between  and . Note also from what you cited Short/long pairs of vowels, which are similar in phonetic quality, retain comparable onglide propotions and compare and contrast  with an onglide of almost 50 per cent length, and  and  with around 10 per cent each.


 * If is another phonemic long vowel, then we need to create an extra category. Because the targets of,  and  are close enough to be identical, it'd need to create a category of long vowel + onset or long vowel - onset, but diphthong seems to be suitable.


 * Anyway, it could be best not to attempt to answer the question. This version doesn’t, but it’s a lot busier. If you like it better, you can add it to the article and I’ll make one that shows only the short vowels. The article you gave indicates that this is theoretically valid (e.g. The results of the duration data confirm the traditional analysis of Asutralian English vowels that there are essentially two length types: long, which includes diphthongs, and short. A three-way length distinction as proposed by Bernard (1967b) is not support by the present data.)


 * (In any case, I did include /i:/ on the other chart as a way to avoid answering the question.)


 * —Felix the Cassowary 04:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The /ɜ:/ is more like /ɘ:/ in my mouth and in that vowel chart it's also appears closer.


 * No it's not, though it might be more like . But that isn't the basis on which we alter the page; we're following established conventions, not making knew ones. Also, the exact pronunciation varies; for me it's a slightly retracted (which looks almost the same as a slightly advanced  when mapping only F1 and F2, as that chart is ... sounds almost the same, too). Let's follow the convention. —Felix the Cassowary 10:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * and are allophones and that should be noted.


 * It is, although without specifying the exact qualities (because is also used, and probably others). —Felix the Cassowary 12:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Competing Orthographies
The table below is of various competing orthographies for Australian English vowel phonemes: I have put this comparative table in this talk page to show some of the competing orthographies for Australian vowel phonemes that have been created by various Australian Linguists (see here for references). – AxSkov ( ☏ ) 16:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * M.-D. don't use lenght symbols, do they? At least, the Macq. doesn't, nor do modern publications that use them. — Felix the Cassowary 03:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No, M-D doesn't use lengths that I know of, it was a mistake. It was an oversight, somehow I put those length symbols in the table when I was compiling it. – AxSkov ( ☏ ) 04:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Good-good, I haven't read anything by them so I didn't want to edit it if I was wrong. — Felix the Cassowary 04:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Feesh and Cheeps and Fush and Chups
I presently have this in the section of the kit vowel in Australian English including the common stereotypes. ; : for example kit, bid, hid''. (M.-D. .) The target for this vowel tends to be tenser than in other varieties of English. Because of this, some New Zealanders often claim that Australians say feesh and cheeps for fish and chips while some Australians conversely claim that New Zealanders say fush and chups.''

Does this include unnecessary information? Cassowary thinks that it does. But those stereotypes are very real, and so should perhaps be mentioned somewhere in the article. 64.194.44.220 02:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Should we include all stereotypes? (well, except for the fake ones, like the way Americans say "sprint" as "flicrk", that's a very common fake stereotype). Should we include that some Australians will stereotype Australian Wogs as doing the same? the fact that Americans will stereotype Australians as saying "buy" for "bay" or "boy" for "buy"? How about the "g'doy moyt" stereotype of Australian wogs, by non-wog Australians? Anyway, how is New Zealand English relevant to a discussion of Australian English? It's not, but in order to include that statement as relevant you'd need to explain why Aussies say Kiwis say "fush and chups" (by the way, the kit-bit split is the wrong place to link to, because there is no split in New Zealand English).


 * I'll agree that it might perhaps be relevant in a discussion of the differences between Australian and New Zealand English, but that's not what that is. That's a discussion of Australian English, without regard for others.


 * —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 03:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Golf-gulf merger
The golf-gulf merger article is in danger of being deleted. 64.194.44.220 22:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And, User:64.194.44.220, you can save it. Just find us a reliable source. Jimp 06:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Kambah sounds like Canberra?
Hi, at present the article on the Canberra suburb of Kambah, Australian Capital Territory contains the assertion "Kambah sounds like Canberra." It doesn't really the way I hear most people say the two words, maybe my hearing is not good or I move in the wrong circles. They quite possibly both derive from Ngambri. Perhaps, as to pronounciation, a fellow-editor, more skilled in phonics than I am (not at all!) can help. To provide meaningful input, perhaps you would have needed to hear the words pronounced by Canberrans, but maybe not.--A Y  Arktos 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I expect you would. Can you make a recording of both words? I would guess however that "Kambah" was pronounced (i.e. first syllable like "ram", second like "slumber") and "Canberra" is pronounced, so if my guess is right the only difference is the missing "r" in "Kambah". I've never heard the word "Kambah", so I could be way off though. Maybe it rhymes with "Rumba"?  —Felix the Cassowary 02:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have the means (or nous) to make recordings and upload them. In non-phonetic terms I believe Kambah is pronounced that the first syllable rhymes with cam as in 'cam shaft', the second syllable is bah as in 'bah humbug'.  The first syllable of Canberra would rhyme with a 'can of drink'.  Your IPA symbals show the pronounciation being similar but would these rhymes make a difference? Thanks --A  Y  Arktos 21:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah well, I do think some people pronounce "Canberra" the way it's written (in IPA as ) but it always strikes me as odd and unnatural, like the way Americans say "Melbourne" as Mel-BORN instead of MEL-ben. Presumably the person who made the assertion says "Canberra" like I do, whereas you say it like it's written. Now, as for the second syllable of "Kambah", if you say it's pronounced as "bah humbug", then in the IPA that'd make it, but the difference in pronunciation between and  at the end of a word is very slight&mdash;mostly just the length of time you say it for. My guess&mdash;as someone who's only spent about an hour in Canberra, and most of it in a car&mdash;is that if you listen carefully you'll find some people pronounce it with the longer  and some with the shorter . Maybe the person who wrote it used the shorter sound. Or maybe the person who wrote it was just alluding to the fact that the long and short sounds sound similar. (PS: I hope the IPA symbols are showing properly for you. I think I've explained them well enough to understand them, but if I haven't I'll try again. It's hard explaning things you know like the back of your hand ;) —Felix the Cassowary | toːk 10:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I live in canberra and we pronounce canberra as and kambah as

Wrong symbols part two
graph, chance, demand, dance, castle, grasp, to contrast.

This time the question is not really about the symbols used so much as the phoneme. For some of these words I use but I don't think I ever use. I'm pretty sure it's always for me whenever it's not. Then, on the other hand; whereas I say ;  all sound definitely unAussie as opposed to. Is there any pattern as to which side of the BAD-LAD split these TRAP-BATH split wavering words fall? Jimp 16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're using a flat-a in these words, the division between long and short flat-a is exactly the same here as it is anywhere: short before fricatives, long before unless certain other criteria are met (which they never are for these words­). —Felix the Cassowary 03:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Do Australians actually use the term "flat a"? In Britain, I usually hear "short a" for  and "long a" for, though that wouldn't make as much sense in the Aussie context where what we call the "short" one has sometimes become long.--JHJ 08:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * is usually called "broad a" here when it comes from the TRAP-BATH split, or just "the /aː/ sound" otherwise*, with "long a" meaning (taken from the Middle English value). I have no idea where I picked up the term "flat a", but it's less common and only ever used in contrast to broad a. In contrast to long a, and normally, you get "short a" meaning both  and.


 * I think part of the reason for this is because the broad-a/flat-a split is finished and the differences are socially conditioned, whereas the long/short flat-a split still seems to be spreading to new environments (e.g. by the time English was exported to Australia (cf. the Philidelphia and Estuary English systems), it seems it hadn't yet spread to before whereas it is now there with exceptions (either way) exclusively neologisms; in 1985†, it hadn't yet spread to before  whereas by now (IME & unsourced) I'd say  was the normal pronunciation of "badge").


 * * Orthographic a represents so many sounds that it's hardly worth having names for them all.
 * † Blake, B. J., (1985). ‘Short a’ in Melbourne English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 15: 6–20.


 * —Felix the Cassowary 11:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Celery/salary merger
Altered the reference from 'In Victoria..' to 'for some Victorian speakers...' since this merger is far from universal. 61.69.244.153 03:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Oscar (12th March 2006)

/ɐ:/ different before "r"
Australian English /ɐ:/ sounds more fronted to me (closer to /æ:/) in syllables ending with a (theoretical, unpronounced) "r". Any thoughts on this from native speakers of AuE? Richwales 05:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean that the vowels of ‘farce’/‘farm’ and ‘pass’/‘palm’ in AusE sound different to you? They’re not. The ‘r’ is just one orthographic notation of the long vowel. For instance, when you form colloquial words by appending one of the affixes -ie/-y, -er/-a or -o after the first syllable (or some other opportune place), newly intervocallic fricatives may be voiced. Hence, ‘afternoon’ /aːftənʉːn/ becomes /aːvəʉ/, spelt ‘arvo’.
 * Do you also mean you’re not a native AusE speaker? Is your own accent rhotic? You could be hearing a difference you’re used to hearing as significant, when really, it’s just because the AusE vowel is central vs your own which might be back; or you might have misunderstood an allophone (I’ve heard it as a side-remark that in Melbourne, /a/ is fronted after /k/).
 * —Felix the Cassowary 08:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not a native AusE speaker. I grew up in California, but then lived for several years in Ontario, Canada before moving back to California.  My everyday speech is that of Ontario (I've been mistaken many times, by Canadians, for a native speaker) — but as a result of having become "bi-dialectal", I've become consciously aware of many speech distinctions that are allophones in one dialect or another.


 * I just finished watching the public memorial for Steve Irwin. The service opened with a speech by John Howard, in which he clearly exhibited the distinction I'm talking about here in words such as "rem a rkable", "h ea rts", and " a rms" on the one hand, and "qu a lity" on the other.


 * On the other hand, most other speakers at the Steve Irwin memorial — such as Anthony Field and Wes Mannion — did not make this distinction. I wonder if it might be a regional variation.  I'm pretty sure that, when these vowel sounds are different, they are treated as allophones and the difference is not noticed by most Australians.


 * Richwales 03:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In Britain, and I believe Australia too, the vowel in quality is different from that in father and calm, and the non-rhotic vowel written ar is the latter. E.g. in RP barmy and balmy are both  but quality is .  So you'd need a pair like balmy/barmy to check whether the ghost of the /r/ has any effect on the vowel quality.--JHJ 07:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As JHJ says, the vowel in ‘quality’ is different from the vowel in ‘remarkable’. ‘Quality’ is /kwɔləti/ and has the same vowel as ‘cot’, ‘hot’ or ‘what’/‘watt’. (I don’t know how much the American balm/bomb, cot/caught and very/vary mergers have affected all of this, so I’ll explain it basically all: In a word spelt with a ‘w’, ‘wh’ or ‘qu’ followed by a short ‘a’ not followed by a velar consonant, the ‘a’ is pronounced as if it were a short ‘o’. So the A’s in was, what, watt, waffle, quantity, quality, Warrigul (a town) or warm, quarter, war are all treated as short o’s, and the words are pronounced as /wɔz wɔt wɔt wɔfəl, kwɔntəti kwɔləti, wɔrigəl/, /woːm, k(w)oːtə, woː/ respectively. On the other hand, wary, wafer, whale or wack, wag, wang are /weːri, wæɪfə, wæɪəl/, /wæk wæːg wæŋ/. The word ‘water’ is /woːtə/ but I have no idea why; forms of strong verbs like ‘swam’ /swæm/ are also excepted.)
 * I’m afraid if you didn’t hear a distinction in other speakers of AuE, it would be because you missed a distinction that was made.(*) I doubt any Australians would consider the sounds /ɔ/ and /aː/ to be alike; the difference of length (if nothing else) is very salient. Even /a/ and /ɔ/ (cut vs cot) aren’t all that alike; /æ/ and /a/ (cat vs cut) are nearer.
 * (*) To my (native AuE) ear and lips, the Australian English vowel /ɔ/ is probably less rounded than its symbol suggests. And this might be age-related, so John Howard’s /ɔ/ might be rounder than the younger speakers, making it easier for you to hear the difference. But that’s just a guess...
 * —Felix the Cassowary 08:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I may be getting misled here by the North American father-bother and cot-caught mergers here, so OK, I'll concede that the vowel in "qu a lity" is a different phoneme from the vowel in " a rm". Let me ask you (and/or any other native AusE speaker) a different (but possibly related) question:  Do you perceive the vowel in " a rm" to be the same as, or different from, the initial portion of the diphthong in "l i fe"?  Richwales 16:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Similar. Whether it’s the same or not depends on how broad the speaker’s accent is. Personally I’ve never been very sure there’s much point in using a different symbol (/a/ or /ɐ/ vs /ɑ(e)/, rather than something more like /a/ vs /a(i)/), but that seems to be the lie of the land. —Felix the Cassowary 22:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "our", "ours"
I am aware that in AusEng, "our" is often pronounced as, eg "our car". But there are two things I'd really like to know:

1) Is this pronunciation used before vowels, eg "our aunt" ?

2) Can the adjective "ours" be pronounced as ? --The Lazar 03:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes (well, I have in that context) and yes; these are usual. Some people do say  tho, particularly if ‘speaking properly’. If this is a perculiar feature of AusE and doesn’t constitute original research, then it should be mentioned, perhaps along with Australian-specific pronounciations like auction with a short vowel. The pronunciation [aː] and [aːz] like they use in England are unlikely to be heard here, but I have a friend from NZ at Uni who does precisely that. —Felix the Cassowary 08:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I can second everything Felix said (except for the bit about having a NZ friend at Uni). Jimp 07:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation of ʉː and iː
Would there be any other studies conducted that include ʉː and iː? I believe that the NSW pronouciation is different, eg. "pewl" vs "pool" and "oils" vs "eels". - Diceman 13:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is some variation between those two pairs (I’m not sure what you mean by ‘oils’, I suppose the vowel of ‘fee’ followed be a the last syllable of ‘royals’). I don’t think I’ve seen any proper regional studies on the topic tho. My impression is that it’s a change that’s probably affecting the whole country, but has spread from Adelaide to Melbourne to Sydney over a period of at least a generation so younger speakers in Sydney might still say ‘pewl’ [pʉːəɫ] whereas older speakers in Adelaide probably normally say ‘pool’ [pʊːɫ].


 * The only study other than the ones I’ve cited in the article that I can remember reading that discuss the issue, was one about whether a given vowel + l combination was pronounced monosyllabically or disyllabically. It didn’t actually discuss the phonetics of the vowel, but I presume that the pronunciations of /ʉːl/ were monos. [ʊːɫ] (your ‘pool’) vs dis. [ʉːəɫ] (‘pewl’) and of /iːl/ were monos. [ɪːɫ] (‘eel’?) vs dis [iːəɫ] (where [iː] contains the onset standard for AusE /iː/; ‘oil’?). It was limited to Adelaidean English, and found that there the monosyllabic pronunciation of ‘pool’ was all but mandatory for the speakers involved, but there was some amount of variation for ‘eel’.


 * —Felix the Cassowary 23:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The classic (exaggerated) example would be the Kath and Kim pronounciation of "Look at me". The other times I've heard it are on Toyota World Sport (some Rugby commentator) and the Patrick Stevedore dockworkers (their pronounciation of "defeated").


 * Doesn't sound like there's enough to mention these two additional vowles the article yet. - Diceman 06:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

M.-D.
...is used in the article but completely unexplained. What does it stand for? Why is it there? Widsith 14:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * An anonymous user deleted a considerable portion of this article a while ago. I’ve restored it. Hopefully it explains it adequately now. —Felix the Cassowary 02:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reason for /ɔ/
Does anyone know why Harrington et.al advocate the use of the symbol ɔ for the vowel in "hot"?

In the IPA, this symbol represents cardinal vowel 6, which is rounded. Now unless my pronunciation is different from other people's, I would say that Oz. Eng doesn't round this vowel. Wouldn't "ʌ" be more appropriate?

On the other hand, the sound recordings I've heard of [ʌ] don't sound very close to "o".

Marquetry28 14:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Was originally more rounded I think. It's definetly not ɑ or ɒ though. Maybe ɔ̜ (with 'less rounding' diacritic))is a good transcription? 220.253.97.228 (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For a phonemic transcription, the less rounding diachritic wouldn't really be appropriate. There are two things to keep in mind.  One is that low back vowels tend to be less rounded than high back vowels.  Also keep in mind that most dialects of English don't have cardinal, such as RP or GA where it may even be closer to .  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A/schwa
I posted this at the IPA chart for English a while back but I'd probably get a better response (or a response) here. As far as I can hear in Australian English (Sydney, at least) 'winner' wouldn't end with a schwa but an 'ah'-ish sound, 'win-ah', same with words like 'here'/'near' ('he-ah'/'knee-ah'), same for other examples on this page ('win-tah'). And /ʊə/ in tour is by no means rare, except, again the schwa is more of an 'ah' sound. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Schwa can be lowered to ɐ. It's still a schwa. 220.253.138.16 (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

comparison chart
Since many Australian names are given pronunciations with the generic English conventions of help:pronunciation, but others are linked here, I thought it would be useful to include a conversion chart. I'm not sure about one of the  vowels. kwami (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That was right; really old Australian English (i.e. descriptions the 19th century) had a distinct vowel, but it was by far the first of the centring diphthongs to monophthongise. —Felix the Cassowary 11:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The /аɪ/ Vowel
Everyone knows the stereotypical /аɪ/ in Australian English is [ɒɪ] or something like that. How common is this realization? I would like to hear this from an Aussie. Thegryseone (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A proper /аɪ/ sound sounds posh to an Aussie. The usual pronunciation is /ɑɪ/ (which can sound very close to /ɔɪ/), and the ocker pronunciation is /ɑ:/.  That means that "buy" sounds a little bit like "boy" for some people, and "ice" sounds exactly like "arse" when ocker people say it.  Of course, there is no confusion, because anyone who would pronounce "ice" like that would pronounce "arse" with a strongly fronted /a:/.  — Chameleon 09:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never actually heard anyone's pronunciation of "buy" even slightly rhyme with "boy". Also to take into consideration, the area I live in consists mostly of Cultivated and some general Australian accents. --121.45.73.208 (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that pretty much the same as the Cockney /аɪ/? Thegryseone (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

ʉːl vs uːl
Living in Tasmania, I've never heard anybody use /ʉːl/, always /ʊu/ or sometimes /ʊːl/. Does this count as another long vowel, a diphthong, or just variation from standard AuE? 220.253.138.16 (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As the sentence before the one you edited said, yes, a fully backed allophone is a common variant in some parts of Australia. I haven't seen anything that explicitly mentions Tasmania but I would imagine it's more than just the Victoria and South Australia that is explicitly mentioned (i.e. that it's a change that's spreading). If you want it could read "some parts of Australia" rather than explicitly mentioning regions, being ambiguous but not breaching WP:NOR like your current edit does.
 * As to whether the vowel counts as "another long vowel, a diphthong, or just variation from standard AuE", you're creating a false dichotomy i.e. it can be another long vowel or diphthong while still being variant from standard AusE: for instance, Victorian speech is clearly within the bounds of standard AusE, but celery/salary or shell/shall aren't distinguished as they are in the rest of the country. One of the articles I read for this considered /ʊː/ to be a phoneme with two realisations: the monophthong before /l/ and [ʊə] word-finally in words like "tour", but [ʊə] is generally a pretty rare sound in AusE.
 * There's also the third question of whether coda /l/ (i.e. /l/ at end of syllable) is lost. As far as I know it's never a case of categorical loss, but instead it's more or less likely to be deleted depending on linguistic and social contexts. Probably there should be a subsection/paragraph on it in the consonants section.
 * It's worth noting that the high-level phoneme classifications you see on the article are for any language largely a matter of opinion. There's no way of proving "too" and "tool" or "tool" and "tour" have the same vowel or have different vowels in our mental representation. But it is convenient to talk about them as if they are, and it's the way most linguistics works.
 * —Felix the Cassowary

It's better to be ambiguous with the regions in my oppinion, because sound changes do occur faster than books and research papers can keep up, especially in this part of the world. 220.253.172.246 (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, Dam, etc.
I've heard Aussies pronounce man as and dam, or something like that. They seem to rhyme with mairn and dairm, respectively, if such words existed. Can anyone tell me about this? Thegryseone (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know "man" and "dam" are always pronounced as and  in AusE. There is nasalisation of vowels in the context of nasal consonants, but this is not unique to the [æ] vowels. The article describes the "bad" vowel, and links to the bad-lad split. The phonology of AusE is so different from AmE it doesn't make sense to use American terminology like "tensing" in a discussion of AusE. Incidentally, using "nasal system" like you have is confusing... —Felix the Cassowary 17:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm well aware of all that. I realize that there is a bad-lad split in AuE; however, you're wrong in that this article says nothing about the raising before nasals that I'm referring to. I was never proposing that we use American terminology in a discussion of AuE. I don't know why you thought that. It's just that it was easier for me to describe this phenomenon by using American terminology that I'm familiar with. Thegryseone (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't understand the terminology of your original post. Now that you've clarified you're referring to raising under nasal influence: Allophonic variation of various sorts is common in Australian English. I've never seen any studies particularly on the influence of nasalisation on vowel height. It's certainly not phonemic (i.e. I've never heard anyone pronounce "man's" so it'd rhyme with "Cairns"), but you might try to find some reliable sources on the topic. —Felix the Cassowary 18:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I just meant that I've heard those words pronounced in that way. If you know the IPA, it shouldn't be a problem. When you put a transcription in brackets (e.g. []), it means you're attempting to represent an actual speech sound. Here's an audio example of what I'm talking about. Thanks. Thegryseone (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was an asshole about it. The point is that the vowels in man and noun are raised in AusE according to Felicity Cox (2005), and the phonetic transcription for that IDEA example I gave you transcribes man as, and indeed it sounds like that to my ears, although that speaker did seem a bit broad. It's not that uncommon for vowels to be raised before nasals; nasals have a tendency to cause raising in the vowel preceding them for some reason. Take for example the pin-pen merger in Southern American English and in southwestern Ireland or the non-phonemic æ-tensing that takes place in accents that have undergone the Northern cities vowel shift. The only reason I brought this up is because I imagine it is very noticeable to English ears (it's even noticeable to my American ears). Many English people might pronounce man as, which sounds quite a bit different from. You're the Aussie here, so I'm sure you can verify this by simply contrasting your man with your bad (in this case both would have a long vowel, so try to listen for the quality of the vowels) or your noun with your loud. This is just another little thing that distinguishes Aussie English from English English; that's all. Thegryseone (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In my English, "man" and "bad", "noun" and "loud" have, as near as I can tell, the same vowel modulo nasalisation, the same vowel. Maybe a little higher, but nothing more significant that the other allophonic variation I have with various vowels in various contexts. I don't have a broad accent. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen for some people the way you describe/to the extent you describe.
 * I never thought you were being an arsehole. I suppose we're both being pretty direct but not fully understanding each other; I'm especially not really sure what your point is: if you have a source, you can add it. If you don't have a source, you can't. If you want to know if it happens, just for your own interest, well, you already have an example, so it must.
 * I don't think [meːn] would ever be a good transcription, because I don't think anyone ever rhymes "man's" with "Cairns". That doesn't mean no-one has this raising, just that it's probably not that extreme. But, for all I know, they do.
 * Maybe it's my fault for assuming there has to be some point when it's just idle thinking aloud. I have a tendency to do that, sometimes.
 * —Felix the Cassowary 21:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't at all propose that it should be transcribed as [meːn] in this or any other article. If anything at all, just a brief mention of the raising of TRAP and MOUTH in a pre-nasal environment would suffice. I just thought it was an American thing to raise before nasals (I do it myself), but I often hear Aussies do it quite a bit as well, and I don't hear English people do it at all. The only difference is that Americans have a tendency to diphthongize it as well as raise it. I'm not really surprised you don't have a broad accent, being a Wikipedian. I'm not saying it's not possible. You're right; I was just kind of thinking aloud. Thegryseone (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually did find a reliable source on this a while ago. It was a paper by Felicity Cox. It turns out that I'm right. To my ears this is one of the most distinctive features of Aussie English, and I'm sure English people would feel the same way. This paper says that in a pre-nasal environment patterns with  for the majority of speakers. Also, it says that younger AusE speakers have difficulty differentiating between than and then, because than is raised and it has a short vowel, like then. There is a potential loss of contrast there as a result. This raising applies to as well in pre-nasal environments. Here's the paper just in case you were curious. It's from Cox's web site, which is a good resource. Thegryseone (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Most interesting. (I have the then/than merger too—its one I didn't consistently distinguish in informal writing until after high school—but not the other stuff tmk. I always thought the "then/than" thing was because they're both commonly [ðən]. It's possible I learnt to hear (and maybe even make) a distinction that doesn't really exist; that's reasonably common with educated people... It's easy to make people believe anything.)

Well, I don't think most native English speakers anywhere distinguish between then and than most of the time (including me), but it's for a different reason than this. I believe Cox is referring to the strong forms of each word, otherwise there would be no point in remarking on it, because it wouldn't be at all surprising, given the general English tendency to reduce the vowel in certain unstressed, monosyllabic words in a sentence to schwa. If I'm reading the paper correctly (I'm still not sure if I am), then about 33% of the study group didn't have such extreme raising in a pre-nasal environment, i.e., they would probably pronounce man as something more like rather than. It's possible that you're in that group. Thegryseone (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I pronounce "then" and "than" both as /ðen/ in strong/citation form, is what I was trying to say. And yes, it's possible I'm in that 33 per cent, but the thing is I hear it in everyone else just the same as me unless they have a particularly broad accent. Now I'm not listening to exactly how people pronounce the word, merely identifying the word, so I don't necessarily hear it properly (plus I haven't been in Australia since you made the original comments earlier this year—in fact, for about a year—so I haven't had a chance to really listen carefully to others). It's also possible that northern suburbs Sydney speech is different in this regard from (northern suburbs) Melburnian speech, which is what I speak. (Plus I would be so not surprised at all at this stage to learn that those 33 per cent, and me, actually use the merged form in connected speech, just not in reading-based citation-form speech.) —Felix the Cassowary 11:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What is "beed"?
Notes and examples


 * /iː/ : for example fleece, beed, heat. (M.-D. /i/.) Includes an onset to the high front vowel, except before laterals (Palethorpe & Cox, 2003).

124.183.163.199 (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Past tense of the verb, to bee. Or should it be bead?  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  03:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously just a typo. One hardly needs to bring it up. —Felix the Cassowary 08:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough I hit google books and found in "A critical history of the text of the New Testament By Richard Simon 1689" (or 1682 depending who you believe) that "beed" has been used as the past tense of "be" (erroneously or not I don't know).


 * Quote :
 * "... there was no Catalogue of the Bishops of that Church, nor of other publick Records, that might make it manifest, that there had beed a Church founded in that City..."


 * This information is of course, as useful as pockets in underpants. I just thought I would share :) 124.186.82.84 (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

understanding phonetics
Hi I was wondering if anyone can help me, my 5yr old has started pri primary.He has started on phonetics which i do not under stand at all.his teacher has told him the action for the letter p is like blowing on a candle so now he is convince that candle starts with p. Is there any information i can get my hands on so im not left behind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.214.54 (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell him that you blow the candle out with a p-p-puff ... no, blowing out a candle is usually more of a [ɸ] (which is a bit like a [f] without having your teeth get in the way). Is he an ESL learner?  If not, why the hell is the teacher instructing him on how to pronounce these phonemes (sounds)?  You're more worried about connecting sounds and letters be careful, though, since it's not as simple as it could be (one letter or letter combo can correspond to a number of different sounds & one sound can be written in a number of different ways).  Do you have a library near by?  Get some kids' books & read to him. J IM ptalk·cont 17:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

BATH/PALM/START
Hi, this is just a phonetics question (as most of my questions are). I've seen the Aussie BATH/PALM/START vowel narrowly transcribed as a low front in several places. Is it really ever pronounced that way? Here it shows more of a low central vowel. Thegryseone (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is more central.  instead of  is more of a convenience, just as we often use  for the consonant in ray.  See . J IM ptalk·cont 17:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

CLOTH
Does Australian English have a CLOTH vowel that is distinct from its LOT vowel? Thegryseone (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. LOT = CLOTH ≠ THOUGHT J IM ptalk·cont 17:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing Cockney Innovations?
The article (loosely) states that "en-AU lack some innovations present in Cockney such as the glottalisation of of /t/, th-fronting, and h-dropping". I can vouch that I've heard all of those innovations in Aussie speech, and the latter two quite often (in fact, I'm pretty sure I involuntarily glottalise 't's after a short vowels, but that's probably just me). So are we sure that there isn't a noticable amount of people who would say 'fink' for think, or 'wiv' for with? And/or who drop off /h/ mid-speech (as in 'look at their new ' ouse as opposed to house)? Because otherwise the sentence is flawed. En-AU  Speaker  (T)  (C)  (E) 05:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)