Re: I need an artist ::: and articles
| From: | John Cowan <cowan@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, January 20, 1999, 19:51 |
|---|
Raymond A. Brown wrote:
> I'm wondering if we should not only accept the [E@] analysis of 'hair' but
> also analyze 'part' as [pA@t] and 'saw' as [sO@].
Is this meant to be phonetic, or phonemic?
In a non-rhotic American dialect I'm familiar with (but don't
speak), [sO] = saw, but [sO@] = soar. I've never heard
anyone say [pa@t] and would probably hear it as an extreme
non-rhotic version of "parrot".
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)