Re: I need an artist ::: and articles
|From:||Raymond A. Brown <raybrown@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, January 21, 1999, 20:32|
At 2:51 pm -0500 20/1/99, John Cowan wrote:
>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?
Phonemic - sorry I should've used slashes, not square brackets :=(
>In a non-rhotic American dialect I'm familiar with (but don't
>speak), [sO] = saw, but [sO@] = soar.
Both tend are practically the same in non-rhotic varieties of Brit.English.
'Noah' is usually pronounced /'nou@/ or /'nVu@/ here, but one does come
>I've never heard
>anyone say [pa@t] and would probably hear it as an extreme
>non-rhotic version of "parrot".
Indeed, I guess you would. I was thinking of south German speakers I've
come across who habitually give post-vocalic -r the sound /@/ or/a/, so
that, e.g.. 'mir' = /mIa/ (one syllable). Final -ar becomes very open
[A:]. Again I should've written /'pa@t/