Ray: > And Rosta also wrote: > [...] > >Also: > > > > hoe [h@w] > > holy [h@wli] (/l/ only in 2nd syllable) > > whole, hole [hOw] > > wholly [hOwli] (/l/ ambisyllabic, triggering vowel > > allophone in 1st syllable) > > Very true. _holy_ and _wholly_ are certain not homohones in SE English, > whether 'demotic' or 'learned'. Although I'm very familiar with the > 'demotic' [w], and here it mny times every day, I (and my wife) use a > velarized _l_ (SAMPA ); thus _holy_ is [[log in to unmask]], whereas _wholly_ is > ['hO5.li]. I say ['hOU5li] for _wholly_ (and ['hOUli] for _holy_, but that's the Australian in my accent), but the more usual pronunciation is ['hOUli]. Your (judging by your transcription) and my pronunciation has geminate /ll/, but the more usual one doesn't, and hence is more relevant as evidence for ambisyllabicity. > I think the apparent 'ambisyllacity' of the _ll_ in the latter > word (demotic [wl], 'learned' [5l]) is due to the bimorphemic nature of the > word which, despite the conventional spelling, is being treated as > "whole-ly" (indeed, the spelling _wholely_ in not unknown in 'substandard' > writing). Certainly the phonological contrast reflects the morphological structure of the words, but this doesn't mean that the 'ambisyllabicity' is merely apparent. --And.