Oh those booths

[Paul B. Gallagher]

R. M. Cleminson wrote:

> If you look at the recent posts by Charles Mills, Paul Gallagher and
> Jules Levin, it is clear that whatever the actual articulation, the
> perception by native speakers is [buːðz] rather than [buːðs] (and, as
> another native speaker, I can confirm that that is what I believe I
> say and hear).  Therefore I would strongly recommend using that
> form.
>
> It seems a reasonable inference that the book is describing a variant
> of English in which the final consonant of the singular form is
> voiced.  But -- and I would ask speakers of other variants of English
> here to comment, as I have only heard the unvoiced variant once --
> does the form [buːθ] actually exist?  Or is it in fact [buθ]?

I took the [u:] as a convenient spelling for the tense vowel. In 
American, where we don't have secondary length from lost /r/, the length 
is purely allophonic. But my perception of British English is that their 
long/tense vowels are longer than ours, possibly to the point of being 
distinctively long, and their short vowels are shorter.

So to answer your question, I have /buθ/ realized as [bu.θ], where the 
period denotes allophonic half-length. I don't have /bʋθ/ with the vowel 
of "book" or "foot."

-- 
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
pbg translations, inc.
"Russian Translations That Read Like Originals"
http://pbg-translations.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------