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

>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.
Okay, another bug fix - [ ] are phonetical brackets. For representing
written letters, <r> or |r| is used. (I'm not sure what the exact difference
between _those_ is, but I use mostly the angulars - they're more legible.)
Anyway, non-rhotic accents having centring difthongs derived from V + /r/,
like /e@/ or /E@/ for "air", (could be well analyzed as /e3/ like you'd
probably do) doesn't stop them from being called non-rhotic. I doubt having
more of these difthongs than usual would's be a problem either - so it would
be more about the actual phonetic realization.


>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>.
I agree that it's safe to say that /r/ is a semi-vowel corresponding with
/3/. But they're still not the same, just like /w/ and /u/ or /j/ and /i/
are. Compare pairs like stirring / string.
You do seem to have a point that if other difthongs are transcribed as
vowel+vowel and not vowel+glide, the same should apply to /r/ / /3/ too - so
eg. "Marlowe" should be either /mArlow/ or /mA3lou/...


>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/.
>
>Charlie
Sound shifts. Compare <u> being used for all of /V U ju w/ in English alone.
(And maybe /a/ in eg. "guy".)

John Vertical

Reply