Re: I need an artist ::: and articles

At 11:54 pm +0000 18/1/99, Rhialto wrote:
....
>>So 'unvoiced' has no diacritic?
>
>
>correct. yes, I know, technically, H is voiced, but it seemed silly having
>an accented character and no plain equivalent. An unvoiced H was rejected
>for similar reasons to the voiced X.
In fact /h/ is _unvoiced_.  The voiceless equivalent does occur in
natlangs, e.g. Afrikaans, but is much rarer.


>>>vowels
>>>------
>>>a   e  i  o  u
>>>ar  er    or
>>>aj  ej    oj
>>>au  ee ii oo uu
>
>
>That grid explained...
>
>=hat   =bed   =hit   =hot   =put
>#harp  #her          #saw
>*my    *day          *by
                        ^ 'boy' I think

>*how   *hair  #heat  *hope  #too
>
>*dipthong
>#long
>=short
[.....]
>
>Any vowel gurus know how that vowel table should be arranged?
OK - I'll try.  From your email address you obviously from the same side of
the pond as I am, so the 'o' in 'hot' is [O] and not the American [A].
Also from the second row it's pretty clear that the {r} is silent as
post-vocalic {r} is generally in SE England.  So harp = [hA:p], and you
make it clear that {or} and {aw} have the same sound, i.e. [O:].

You list 'hair' as a diphthong.  I pronounce it [hE:] and I get the
impression that you speak basically the same variety of English as I do.
Some authorities do give it as [hE@], it is true, but as you have no other
diphthongs ending in [@] I'm assuming this really [E:], i.e. a long vowel.
If I understand you correctly, then we have:

short:  [&]    [E]           [I]    [O]    [U]
        hat    bed           hit    hot    put

long:   [A:]   [E:]   [@:]   [i:]   [O:]   [u:]
        harp   hair   her    heat   saw    too

diph.   [aI]   [eI]                 [OI]
        my     day                   boy

diph.   [aU]                        [oU]
        how                         hope

Note: I've shown the 'o' in h'hope' in the 'traditional' way as [oU], and
many people still use that pronunciation.  I southern England, the sound
has tended to become unrounded as [@U] or [V@].

There seems to be a gap, so to speak, in the short vowel row.  I'd expect
[@] (a in about) or [V] (u in but) to be there.

I've given phonetic notation.  I suspect that the first two rows are
possibly intended to be phonemically:

short:  /a/   /E/           /i/    /O/    /u/
 long:  /a:/  /E:/   /@:/   /i:/   /O:/   /u:/

The diphthongs seem a bit sparse.

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@].  In many varieties of
English, the so-called 'long ee' and 'long oo' have semi-vocalic off-glides
and, indeed, are not uncommonly analyzed as [ij] and [uw] respectively.
The long [@:] is, of course, [@@].  In other wards, all the 'long' vowels
could be analyzed as diphthongs and would probably give a better
arrangment, thus:

(a) basic vowels
                 FRONT                       BACK
  high            /i/ (hit)                  /u/ (put)
    mid            /e/ (bed)              {  /V/  (but)  }
      low            /a/ (hat}               /o/  (hot)


(b) fronting diphthongs
                /ij/ (heat)
                /ej/ (day)
                 /aj/ (my)               /oj/ (boy)

(c) centring diphthongs
                /e@/ (hair)               /V@/  (her)
                 /a@/ (part)              /o@/  (saw)

(d) backing diphthongs
                                          /uw/  (too)
                                       {  /Vw/   (hope)  }  OR
                  /aw/ (how)              /ow/   (hope)


I hope that's not too confusing :)

Ray.