Re: Schwa and [V]: Learning the IPA
| From: | Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, June 16, 2006, 1:24 |
|---|
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:02:06 -0400, Tristan Alexander McLeay
<conlang@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Really, even when short?
>>
>> Yes - length is not phonemic in this neck of the woods.
>
> I was of the impression that length and quality were concomitantly
> phonemic (I think that means what I want it to mean) ... but would you
> take [I:] as long as /i:/, or [i] as short as /I/ to be nothing more
> than, respectively /I/ and /i:/?
I have always held (well, not always, but it is my most recent position,
and relatively long-lived as such things go) that length is not phonemic
in my lect. Quality alone suffices, and it "feels" like my canonically
long vowels aren't much if any longer than the short ones. Well, the other
day I accidentally found a minimal pair for length, I think: A /pE`/ is
two of something and a /pE:`/ *** is a fruit like an apple, unless I'm
mishearing myself. I think there *might* be a triplet /I/ ~ /i/ ~ /i:/ but
I'll have to get back to you on that one once I figure it out. There's
|ick!|, |eke| and |eek!| I suppose, but do interjections really count? I'm
not given to saying "eek!" much, anyway. I think it's only part of my
lexicon by association.
*** Note that the rhoticity is only realized before vowels, as /r\/, and
is normally mute.
Paul
Replies