On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:58:44PM +1100, Tristan McLeay wrote:
> That can't be the reason; IMD 'of' is /Ov/ when stressed, but 'could
> of' still appears. The simple reason is that 've and of are pronounced
> the same (when the latter is unstressed. Unless perhaps your dialect
> actually doesn't allow unstressed 'of'? That'd be odd...
No, my dialect definitely allows unstressed 'of'. Scratch the [@]/[V]
bit; chalk it up to overanalysis. :)
> I don't know that the glottal stop is phonemic (and I've heard evidence
> that the phoneme for US [4] is actually /t/, so 'meddle' and 'mettle'
> are both homophones as (what I suppose is) /mEtl=/, contrary to
> intuition.
Odd indeed. Also homophonic with "metal" over here, of course.
> I voiced my /t/ then, but it might not. I know that when I was in
> the middle of high school (yr 9ish),
School year 9 is the middle of high school for you? That's the first
year of high school here - in some cases the last year before high
school.
> * I also realised at a similar time that when I noticed that I
> pronounced el (e.g. in elementary) as [&l],
Ah, yes, alimentary school.
> I'd stopped doing that, and started saying [el].
[el]? Not [El]?
> I say /k&iS/ (i.e. caish), but that's a spelling pronunciation.
Indeed? Is it not a common word Down Under?
> I tried a number of pronunciations before I settled on that one, but
> I'm almost certain it's the only pronunciation of heard.
Was that an intentional example of the "treat any /@v/ as |of|"
phenomenon? :)
-Marcos