Re: more English orthography

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_.
    Reverting to the case of Buginese /-?/:  Historically, that /?/ reflects
the neutralization of final *p,t,k,r,l,s, of which only /-k-, -r- and -s-/
have survived underlyingly.  However, presented with an unfamiliar word with
/-?/, the average native speaker has no idea which consonant to use in
derivations.  Even relatively familiar words show variation between
speakers-- from **/apa?/ some might say **/apar@N/ others will give
**/apas@N/ or **/apak@N/.  In a few cases the dictionary gives two (or all
three) possibilities, with slight differences in meaning.  The language is
written, though not widely anymore I think; in any case the writing system--
very perverse and ill-adapted--doesn't indicate final /?/, or final /N/ for
that matter.

ObConlang:  In Kash, kawayo kombra would mean 'dead horse'.