Re: more English orthography

Marcus Smith wrote:
> In fact, the people I tested were consistent in responding with
> [h{lVkIti]
Well, [V] and [@] are allophones of each other, at least in my dialect,
[V] used in stressed syllables, and [@] in unstressed.

Also, I have a (probably nonphonemic) distinction between "really short
schwa" as in the third syllable of dilapidated (the schwa seems to be
less a phoneme and more a transition between sounds - it lasts just as
long as it takes for the tongue to move up to the roof of the mouth,
starting when the /p/ opens) and "regular schwa" as in "kappa", in which
both the /&/ and the /@/ seem to take the same length to pronounce.

> Since they are willing to provide a form
> for these when there could not possibly be any stored in their head, then I
> think we have to be suspicious of any pronunciation of an uncommon word.
Ah, but what if instead of *telling* them the word, you'd shown them the
word and asked them to pronounce it?  I suspect you'd find a reasonably
consistent guessing there.  The use of [V] makes sense, when forced to
choose a transformation from [@] into another vowel, they'd pick the
closest one, namely [V], which is, in fact, an allophone of [@] in many
(most? all?) dialects.

--
"If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men
believe and adore, and preserve for many generations the remembrance of
the city of God!" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Glassín wafilái pigasyúv táv pifyániivav nadusakyáavav sussyáiyatantu
wawailáv ku suslawayástantu ku usfunufilpyasváditanva wafpatilikániv
wafluwáiv suttakíi wakinakatáli tiDikáufli!" - nLáf mÁldu nÍmasun
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor