YAEPT: apparently bizarre 'A's (was Re: YEAPT: f/T (was Re: Other Vulgar Latins?))
|From:||Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 2:58|
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:12:07 -0500, Tristan Alexander McLeay
> On 22/02/06, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
>> On 2/21/06, Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:43:24 -0500, Keith Gaughan
>> > wrote:
>> > >> half hearth
>> > >
>> > > I don't know any dialect of English where these two are a minimal
>> > > rhotic or non-rhotic.
>> > I have /hAf/ ~ /hAT/. In non-careful enough speech, I can have /A:f/
>> > both of them.
> I'm not sure what the distinction you're trying to draw between /A:/
> and /A/ is, Paul. Could you elaborate, or is it just a typo/thinko?
One's long, the other's short. Maybe not canonically long vs short, but my
sloppy lect includes long(er) vowels and my casual lect pretty much
doesn't, as far as I can tell, at least not contrastively. R-colouring in
my normal speech seems to be qualitative but not quantitative. Partial
lengthening in my sloppy speech seems to be due to loss of initial /h/ in
front of "rhoticized" vowels, whereas vowel-initial words get /?/. It's
plausible the lengthening is subphonemic/allophonic in response to the
lack of /?/.
|hat| /hat/ vs |hart| /hAt/ vs |art| /At/
|hat| /at/ vs |hart| /A:t/ vs |art| /?At/
Warning: I'm not a phonologist, indeed I'm entirely not formally-trained.
I'm just doing the best I can on short notice.
Second Warning: My accent was a bastard (in the technical sense) to begin
with (Milton Keynes native of Harrow stock, with plenty of time in rural
Buckinghamshire). Transplanting it to North Carolina has probably not