Re: Schwa and [V]: Learning the IPA

On 6/14/06, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
> Yep - [U] or [V] is quite distinct from [@] for most of us Brits.
You keep mentioning [U] and [V] together - are they merged for you?  I
know they are for some, but I thought it was a Scots thing.

> It is evident that in many (all?) parts of the US the two phonemes have
> fallen together, but it ain't so in extra-US English.
I don't think it's all that evident; phonemicity is murky waters.
There is clearly a partial *phonetic* merger: the unstressed sound
which is used for /@/ in the generic case is the same, other than
stress, as that used for /V/.   But I'm not so sure there's a
*phonemic* one.  If /@/ is a phoneme, it has many other allophones -
[I], [I\], [U], [U\], syllabicization of approximants and nasals, etc;
the exact set depends on 'lect -  while /V/ does not.  At least IML
there are words like "hiccup" and "pickup" where the unstressed /V/
does not sound like a schwa would in that location; there are even
quasi-minimal pairs like "big'un" /'bIg.Vn/ vs "embiggen" /Em'bIg.@n/.

> Down in our non-rhotic neck of the woods, the sound in 'bird' is felt to
> be he stressed form of schwa   ;)
Sure.  To me it sounds like /bV:d/=/b@:d/, so whatever vowel you guys
put there is very close to the one I use for /V/,/@/.  Of course,
"bird" in my lect is more like [br\=d].

> But, as I say, this has been discussed before. IIRC there was a thread
> called "Is your curry furry?" - here 'curry' /kVri/ does _not_ rhyme
> with 'furry' /f@ri/
Pre-R is one of the places, like pre-L which came up in the "Sulky"
context", where [V] categorically cannot appear IML.  So 'curry' =
/k@ri/ =~ [k_hr\=:i] rhymes exactly with furry, hurry, surry, slurry,
blurry, manure-y, etc.  Oddly, though, 'bury' rhymes instead with
'berry'.

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

Reply