Re: Part 2 Why my con langs SUCK!!!

Roger Mills scripsit:

> Which is exactly what written English does.  I've suggested in that past
> that the _underlying_ phonology of _all_ Engl. dialects (the standard-ish
> one, at any rate) does have /r/ in all the positions where it is written.
I think you are right, but there are difficulties.  What about ARSE, for
example?  The universal North American pronunciation is [&:s]; does this have
underlying /r/ or not?  Surely you don't want to claim that BASS, the fish,
is underlyingly /bars/ or /b&rs/ (OE "baers").

> Intervocalic and final-prevocalic /r/ are almost always retained.
> Pre-consonantal /r/ is the problem:
Final /r/ mostly patterns like pre-consonantal /r/, but what are we to
do with "intrusive r" in non-rhotic dialects, where unhistorical r's
appear in external sandhi by analogy to the historically lost ones?

--
"There is no real going back.  Though I         John Cowan
may come to the Shire, it will not seem         jcowan@reutershealth.com
the same; for I shall not be the same.          http://www.reutershealth.com
I am wounded with knife, sting, and tooth,      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and a long burden.  Where shall I find rest?"           --Frodo

Replies