> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Lars Finsen<[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Den 21. okt. 2010 kl. 09.45 skreiv Philip Newton: >> >> >>> I'm reminded of a complaint by a resident of New York that her niece >>> was asked to "underline all the short vowels" in a piece of text at >>> school... which was supposed to include the "o" in "dog". Only in the >>> niece's native 'lect, that word has a *long* vowel (I suppose that's >>> where the "dawg" respelling sometimes used in slang comes from). >>> >>> Fun when instructional materials try to generalise across multiple >>> different accents of the same language.... >>> >> >> Interesting. Where in the English-speaking world is that vowel short? It's >> short in _doggie_, but much longer in _dog_ the way I think I've heard it - >> comparable to _door_. Even in _dogs_ the vowel is much longer than in _digs_ >> the way I think I've heard it. Many accents, including England and S Hemisphere have LOT in _dog_, and don't merge LOT with any other phoneme. Note that the "underline short vowels" task would be phonological not phonetic: it means "underline vowels that can occur only in closed syllables". Larry Sulky, On 21/10/2010 19:40: > In my 'lect, which is pretty close to GenAm, the "o" of "dog" and the "o" of > "doggie" are identical, and are short. They are also the same vowel as the > "a" in "father". If the "a" in "father" is the same phoneme as the "a" in "bra" and "spa", then it'd be by definition long (in the phonological sense of the long/short distinction pertinent to the vowel-underling exercise), since it can occur in stressed word-final positions. --And.