Re: I need an artist ::: and articles

Jown 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?
>
>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".
Attempting to use /@/ as a semivowel reminds me of how I have
analyzed Boreanesian long vowels and diphthongs. There are four
basic vowels: /a/ /@/ /i/ /u/. These can be closed phonemically by
five coda consonants. Three of these codas are semivowels which I'll
represent as follows: /i/ /@/ /u/. Combining the four vowels with
the three semivowels we can obtain the following grid:

/ai/  /a@/  /au/
/@i/  /@@/  /@u/
/ii/  /i@/  /iu/
/ui/  /u@/  /uu/

The most notable phonological process that dictates how these
combinations are articulated is the assimilation of vowels and
semivowels: A front vowel /i/ followed by a front semivowel /i/
becomes a long front vowel [i:]. Central vowels /@/ or /a/ followed
by a central semivowel /@/ become long central vowels [@:] [a:]. A
back vowel /u/ followed by a back semivowel /u/ becomes a long back
vowel [u:]. Thus, the grid of 12 combinations given previously
phonetically reveals 4 long vowels and 8 diphthongs as follows:

[aj]  [a:]  [aw]
[@j]  [@:]  [@w]
[i:]  [i@]  [iw]
[uj]  [u@]  [u:]

There are of course dialectal differences. The diphthongs /i@/ and
/u@/ are pronounced as long vowels [i:] and [u:] in some Boreanesian
dialects. This is similar to the differences I have heard in the
'Down-Under' English dialects (Australia, New Zealand, South
Africa). Some pronounce 'beer' as [bi@], others as [bi:]. Some
pronounce 'sure' as [Su@], others as [Su:].

Regards,
-Kristian- 8-)