Re: phonology of borrowed words

 --- Adrian Morgan <morg0072@...> wrote: >
bnathyuw wrote, quoting myself:
>
> > > Also, it was interesting that the pronunciation
> of some foreign words
> > > has become _more_ authentic over time. For
> example, younger members of
> > > the class consistently pronounced the final
> syllable of "reservoir"
> > > [vwa], while only the very oldest members chose
> [vo:].
> >
> > so some people pronounce it ( attempting to do an
> > australian accent ) ['r\Iz@vo:] ? here it's
> definitely
> > ['r\Ez@vwA:]
>
> I don't understand why you've denoted the first
> vowel as [I]: it may
> be higher than your /E/ but not *that* much higher!
> The typical
> Australian /e/ is, shall we say, maybe one quarter
> of the way along
> the line from cardinal [e] to cardinal [E].
well, it sounds very much like my /I/, but i do use
quite a low /I/, so it may be pretty similar to your
/E/

 Also,
> isn't the most
> common realisation of /r/ in the English speaking
> world, and the
> _only_ common realisation in Australia, actually
> x-sampa [H] for
> some insane reason? I'm going by descriptions on IPA
> charts.
>
the charts i've seem define [H] as variously the first
sound in the french |huit| and an approximant version
of this same sound. but i was going on my
pronunciation anyway, where /r/ is probably best
transcribed [r\_P] : alveolar approximant along with
labiodental approximant. they're not far off, but
they're far _enough_ off . . . !

> The contrast in question is ['Hez@vo:] versus
> ['Hez@vwa:], the former
> favoured by older people (esp. b. 1950's) according
> to our sample.
>
> Personally, I'm happy with either ... but
> interestingly the two
> pronunciations don't conjour the same image. Saying
> ['Hez@vwa:]
> brings to mind a vivid image of a large-scale
> reservoir with huge
> concrete walls, whereas ['Hez@vo:] fails to do the
> same: if anything
> it makes me think of a /small/ reservoir. However,
> I'd probably use
> ['Hez@vo:] when talking about a metaphorical
> reservoir, e.g. "a
> reservoir of information". Don't ask me why, but my
> brain processes
> the two pronunciations differently.
>
interesting

> > incidentally, on the topic of doing an australian
> > accent, i frequently get mistaken for an
> australian. i
> > think it's something to do with the fact i realise
> > /EI/ as [&I]. and, in eg the word 'australia',
> where
> > the diphthong follows an [r\], [VI]. the oddest
> thing
> > is being told i'm australian by an australian . .
> .
> > surely they should be able to tell my accent's not
> > right !
>
> My /&I/ is definitely not affected by a preceding
> /r/.
>
i'm not sure whether it's a mark of se london accent
or a peculiarity of mine. but both [&I] and [VI] are
heard by people here ( and indeed some australians
i've encountered ) as typically australian versions of
/EI/, despite being typically east/south london as
well ( north london tends if anything to [E:] )

bn

=====
bnathyuw | landan | arR
stamp the sunshine out | angelfish
your tears came like anaesthesia | phèdre

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com