Re: YAEPT: apparently bizarre 'A's (was Re: YEAPT: f/T (was Re: Other Vulgar Lat

Charlie wrote:

> >> For me they are: /ha3T/, /h3d/, /3T/, /sta3/, and /v3s/; but then
> >>I'm an American :-)
(snip query about this)
>
> If my [r] is /3/, doesn't that make me a rhotic American?  My [r] is
> still there. I am under the impression that non-rhotic means no
> sound where there is an [r], as in /hA:t/.  If the pronunciation
> is /hA:rt/ or /hA:3t/ or /hA:4t/ or even /hA:Rt/, then the speaker
> is rhotic.
>
> I realize, in investigating this, that I don't see a difference
> between /r/ and /3/.  Do I assume correctly that /r/ is consonantal
> <red> and /3/ is vocalic <nurse>.
Close but not quite...Phonetic/phonemic problem. Genl.Amer.
initial/consonantal /r/ is [r\] (if I have the CXS right, but you know what
I mean), syllabic (vocalic) and post-vocalic /r/ are another matter-- the
usual IPA is "reversed epsilon with hook" or "schwa with hook" which I think
are CXS [3`] and [@`] (or maybe with \ instead of ` ?) though I've always
preferred [3^] and [@^] for their look-alike value. [3] without hook is
actually the _non-rhotic_ sound in "bird, her" etc. So the little diacritic
is actually important. But _phonemically_ they're all /r/ or /Vowel+r/.
>
> And I've long wondered how [r] has come to be the grapheme for such
> variant phonemes as /r(or 4)/, /3/, /r\/, and /R/.
>
Because.

I'm sure that helps ;-)))