Re: more English orthography

Roger Mills wrote:
>
> Nik Taylor wrote:
> >However, for MY idiolect, I'm not entirely convinced that there's ANY
> difference between [V] and [@] beyond stress.  And apparently not just my
> idiolect, I've heard others call [V] and [@]>
>     Same here, if I assume correctly that [V] means "upside down v", as in
> _cup, but(t), slut etc.   Thinking about this over the last few days, I've
> come to suspect that ALL instances of Engl. final open syllable /@/ e.g.
> sofa, drama, Alabama etc. are non-native, hence, in the absence of written
> forms, we would have no idea whatever about the underlying vowel.
>     The schwa in 3d sing/noun pl. /-@z/ is often higher -- all the way to
> barred i-- for some, accounting for such near minimal pairs as /j@st/ or
> /jVst/ 'just (adj.)' vs. ?/ji-st/ 'just (adv).' Some claim the same contrast
> for _Rosa's_ vs. _roses_.
Interesting, I have the exact same pronunciation of just the adv and
just the adj -- both are /dZVst/ -- no contrast there whatsoever.  But
"Rosa's" and "roses" are absolutely completely different.  Rosa's has
schwa while roses has the barred-i.

Nicole