Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Roger Mills <rfmilly@...>
Date:Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 19:04
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 ;-)))