Re: Schwa and [V]: Learning the IPA

On 16/06/06, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
> Larry Sulky wrote:
> > On 6/15/06, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
...
> > But I still think I disagree. If someone tells me that they'll [kVt]
> > something, I figure they'll use a  knife to do it. But if they say
> > they'll [k@t] something, I have no idea what they're talking about.
>
> Well, yes because you have [@] as a variant of /I/ in 'hobbit' - and
> possibly as an allophone of other unstressed vowels. I would understand
> [k@t] as 'curt'    :)
Really, even when short? I would take it as an odd/dialectal
pronunciation for "kit" or, perhaps "cut". (But using [3:] or [@:] or
something similar for /3:/, versus [2:]~[8:]~[@\:] strikes me as
obviously British.)

...

> Mark J. Reed wrote:
>  > On 6/15/06, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
>  >
>  >> I do not recall anyone questioning the existence of [U] in any American
>  >> dialect. The only reason [U] has occurred in this current version of the
>  >> [V] ~ [@] thread is that in England [sic]
>  >
>  >
>  > "England [sic]?"  Are you emphasizing the fact that you mean England
>  > proper, rather than all of Great Britain or the UK as a whole?
>
> Precisely. Some furriners at least seem to confuse Great Brittan & England.
>
>  >> This is generally the case in most places. As far as I know, no one has
>  >> ever questioned this; but the pronunciation of the phoneme /u/ does very
>  >> in the anglophone world between AFAIK [u\] ~ [u] ~ [M]
>  >
>  >
>  > [M]?  Huh.  Who doesn't round their /u/'s?  And when are the rest of
>  > the Wells volumes coming out in paperback?! :)
>
> Don't  know the answer to the second question, but the answer to the
> first is Australia. I remember when an Oz lady came to the door once; I
> don't recall what i said, but I do remember her reply; [M:]?
>
> I didn't understand immediately and took it for some antipodal grunt -
> but when she repeat the sound it began to realize it was "Who?"    :)
Ahh.. really? That is not what I've heard personally or seen in any
literature I've read on the topic! Australians, for the most part, use
[u\:]: It can get further front than central too, but not so far as
[y] I don't think. To me, [M] is almost indistinguishable from the
completely different sound, /l=/! (I didn't believe it when I first
heard it---I was sure there must've been some mispronunciation---but
it's so!) Are you sure this woman wasn't just being lazy, making some
sort of an antipodal grunt that was intended to be interpreted as
"who?"?

I've heard of [M] being used in Californian Engilsh, though.

...

> I[t] does seem to leave [ə] rather vaguely defined IMO.
Yes, but ... that's precisely the point. /@/ and [@] are vaguely
defined, mid-central vowels. They typically take their precise color
from surrounding consonants and vowels!

--
Tristan.

Reply