Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
Date:Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 19:10
On 2/22/06, caeruleancentaur <caeruleancentaur@...> wrote:
> 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.
1. When talking about your personal realization of the English rhotic, it would be standard to use /r/ and [3] (or [r\] or [4] or whatever). /../ is the underling phoneme, [..] is that phoneme's phonetic realization in a particular 'lect. 2. The sound [3] is not a rhotic sound; it's a schwa-like vowel sound with no rhotic qualities whatsoever. If you pronounce my name [ma3k], then you are putting two vowels and no R into it. It's true that those rhotic speakers who distinguish between [@] and [3] tend to have [3] before the final /r/ in words like "teacher", but that's just the vowel before the /r/, not the /r/ itself. It's not [titS3] - that's a non-rhotic pronunciation. It's titS3`r\] or something similar. The 3 is rhoticized (or rhotacized, I forget which is which) and followed by the actual R-sound (which is probably something like [r\] in American). So one possible realization of /@r/ is [3`r\]. Another is [@`r\]. Still another, which is what I have in my version of GAE, is [r\=]: straight to the growling r, with no preceding vowel, like in "Grrrrr." Bare [3] is one of the non-rhotic possibilities, as is [@].
> 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>.
Nope, see above. To indicate a vocalic r sound, just mark the consonant with the "syllabic" diacritic. In CXS, that's the equal sign.
> And I've long wondered how [r] has come to be the grapheme for such > variant phonemes as /r(or 4)/, /r\/, and /R/.
Because all of those sounds are the diachronic outcome of a sound which started out as [4] or [r] - and the relationship between those two is easily perceived; [r] is basically [4] over and over again really fast. -- Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>