Re: more English orthography

On Þø,r Life of Wat,r ov Tend,rness ov fø,rst Red Cat, Nìk Tail,r wrote:

> Marcus Smith wrote:
> > But [@] is an allophone of all the lax vowels, so I don't see what this
> is
> > supposed to prove.  Also, in my dialect there are times when unstressed
> [V]
> > resists changing to [@].  My first phonology professor said that wasn't
> > unusual.
>
> Well, that may be true in your dialect, but I did specify "in my
> dialect", [@] and [V] are in complimentary distribution, and they are
> phonetically similar, that's the definition of allophone I learned.
> Yes, all lax vowels can become /@/, but isn't that simply phonemic
> neutralization, as in the German phenomenon of voiced consonants
> devoicing word-finally?
>
And h`òw dó yú base yúr claims ðat [@] is an allofone and not a
neutralisat`,n ov [V] (or ov eny oð,r vòw,l)?  I mên, I cood ålso claim ðat
[@] and [E] ár in complimentary distribût`,n and fonètically sìmilar
(unrounded lax medium vòw,ls).

> Of course schwa is a phoneme, I don't think anyone's said it wasn't.  I
> merely stated that IN MY DIALECT, [@] and [V] are allophones, [V] used
> in stressed syllables, [@] in unstressed.
>
-- Carlos Th