Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On 2/22/06, John Vertical <johnvertical@...> wrote:
[snip]
>>I agree that it's safe to say that /r/ is a semi-vowel corresponding with
>>/3/.
Not at all safe, as Mark explains below.
> Nope. First of all, /r/ can mean too many things, so let's stick to
> phonetics. The sound [r] isn't a semivowel - although as a trill, I
> suppose [r] can be syllabic (anyone know of any examples of
> that?).
Yep - Serbo-Croat, e.g. brdo (hill, mountain) ['br=dO]
The approximant [r\] is a semivowel, but the corresponding
> full vowel isn't [3], it's [r\=].
Exactly.
[snip]
> THE VOWEL [3] HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RHOTICS.
Amen.
> The only association is by proximity: the sound [3] is the historical
> outcome, in many English dialects, of a reduced vowel when that vowel
> is followed by an <r> - whether or not the <r> itself is maintained
> phonetically.
Precisely - [3] is no more rhotic than is the [A:] in south-east England
pronunciation of 'car' [k_hA:] or the [E:] in the urban dialects of
Cardiff & Newport where 'car' is [k_hE:]
--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY