I understood that a word that contains a monophthong can make a minimal pair with only a word that contains a monophthong.No. Fee can be half of a minimal pair only if the other half also contains a monophthong.
Please, I am still waiting.I understood that a word that contains a monophthong can make a minimal pair with only a word that contains a monophthong.
And the same goes for words that contain diphthongs.
For example, bee and bay are not a minimal pair.
Am I correct?
According to the above statement, two words are minimal pair if they contain the same type vowels.No. Fee can be half of a minimal pair only if the other half also contains a monophthong.
There is no need. I gave incorrect information in post #2. Sorry. I must have been half asleep.Please, correct me.
However, fire and fee are not a minimal pair because, for most speakers, fire (/ˈfaɪə(r)/ has two syllables.
Please do not tell me I am wrong about the accent (RP) I have spoken for much of my life.So I'm afraid you're wrong, at least about RP and GA
Well, the LPD for one.Right, but which dictionary says fire has two syllables?
I don't understand what you mean here. As Wells explains on page xxvii, "Syllable divisions are shown in LPD by spacing." There is no [.] in the LPD entry for 'fire', but there is a primary stress marker (ˈ) before the first syllable.You haven't quite proved me wrong, actually you've proved yourself wrong - LPD does use a syllabic mark [.], so it's another source saying "one syllable, not two".
No. I told you in my last post how syllable division is shown in the LPD. I had the book open at that page as I typed the words.Maybe I remember it wrong but, don't other entries have [.], like in the software version?
I don't see the point of that link. It led me to what looked like something from CambridgeLike this: http://www.antimoon.com/how/dictionaries/cepd-shot.png if they do (I'm almost sure about it - why would the software and book present different transcriptions?),
Did you not read the entry that I typed from the LPD? It shows the word as two syllables, the first of which is stressed. It does also show the possibility of compression. However, the number of syllables is not directly relevant to the question of minimal pairs.then LPD is yet another dictionary proving the one syllable pronunciation.
If it wasn't forced onto newcomers to have their posts first approved by the moderator and only then you can edit them I'd fix it faster.I don't see the point of that link. It led me to what looked like something from Cambridge
It depends on the analysis. For example, this document considers these phonemes (or at least doesn't say anything about them not being phonemes): http://www.liu.se/ikk/english/files...06147/CompendiumVowelsConsonantsofEnglish.pdf . Wikipedia also says:Whether one considers a tripthong to be one or two syllables does not change the fact that triphthongs are not phonemes in British English, so 'fire' and 'fee' cannot be a minimal pair.
Wikipedia said:English in British Received Pronunciation (monosyllabic triphthongs with R are optionally distinguished from sequences with disyllabic realizations)- [aʊ̯ə̯] as in hour (compare with disyllabic "plougher" [aʊ̯.ə])
- [aɪ̯ə̯] as in fire (compare with disyllabic "higher" [aɪ̯.ə])
- [ɔɪ̯ə̯] as in "loir" (compare with final disyllabic sequence in "employer" [ɔɪ̯.ə])
John Wells said:There are also the sequences to be heard in words such as fire, power, which some people analyse as triphthongs: they are represented by the diphthong symbols as in price, mouth plus schwa. Some authors recognize other similar sequences as well (player, slower...), but there really seems to be no need to list them separately.
I don't think it was appropriate to not approve my first reply to this message though. If you want to not answer, fine, but censorship is childish. I assume it was indeed not approved on purpose, because I posted it about 30-36 hours ago, you were active plenty of time during that time and it still didn't appear. Thinking I wasn't going to suss it and re-post the message was kind of naive. I'm therefore going to bypass the necessity of you approving this post by altering the links, to make sure that this one will be visible.By now I expect that everybody else has given up on this thread. I shall stop too. I don't think I have anything fresh to add to what I have already said.
According to your analysis. Apparently I was wrong too to say that they "are", they are according to me and some phoneticians. It turns out that if you want them to be phonemes, they are. If not, they aren't. The rest of the post clarifies this statement.Most American English dialects are rhotic. As the /r/ is pronounced, 'fire' and 'fee' cannot be a minimal pair.
Most English English dialects are non-rhotic. The /r/ is not pronounced (except when followed by a vowel), but the sound following /f/ is a triphthong. Whether one considers a tripthong to be one or two syllables does not change the fact that triphthongs are not phonemes in British English, so 'fire' and 'fee' cannot be a minimal pair.
Feel and hear as are pretty subjective.John Wells quoting Peter Roach said:To add to the difficulty, there is also the problem of whether a triphthong is felt to contain one or two syllables. Words such as ‘fire’ or ‘hour’ are probably felt by most English speakers (with BBC pronunciation) to consist of only one syllable, whereas ‘player’ /pleɪə/ or ‘slower’ /sləʊə/ are more likely to be heard as two syllables.
Peter Roach said:In talking of triphthongs, I make no claim that these have some special status as vocalic units in English phonology. I state quite clearly that they are sequences of certain diphthongs and a following schwa.
That pretty much ends the discussion. Both of us were wrong and right at the same time.John Wells said:There are also the sequences to be heard in words such as fire, power, which some people analyse as triphthongs: they are represented by the diphthong symbols as in price, mouth plus schwa. Some authors recognize other similar sequences as well (player, slower...), but there really seems to be no need to list them separately.