Re: USAGE: Finnish and English vowels (was: Adapting non-Latin scripts)

On 26/05/06, John Vertical <johnvertical@...> wrote:

> > > trade-in of phonemic length for phonemic syllabicity. Here's a neat
> >minimal
> > > triplet:
> >
> >A "trade-off". (Trade-ins completely replace one thing with another.)
>
> Uh? So how is a trade-off any different then?
> Anyway, yes, I indeed mean to completely get rid of phoneMic lenght. (While
Well, also, "trade-in" means you used to have it, and then you gave it
back to the supplier and got something back. "Trade-off" is the one
that tends to get used figuratively.

....

> I have overengineering tricks for consonants up my sleeve, too; how would
> analyzing [hAmp:u] as /hAn?pu/ sound? :D
Well I think they do that for Japanese already...

> >Confusion?! You were analysing "bird" as /"b@d/? That strikes me as
> >more than a bit funny, considering /@/ a long vowel [;)]. Fact of the
> >matter is, /@/ *does* occur only in unstressed syllables. You could
> >variously (depending on context) unify it with /e/, /i/ and /A/ if you
> >want to eliminate it, which has the advantage of being somewhat
> >intuitive.
>
> No, /b@rd/. I'd have problems with the difference (of rhotic 'lects) between
> "India" and "indier" otherwise.
>
> I still think that the unrhotic vowel traditionally transcribed as /3:/
> sounds closer to /@/ than any of /I E V/ do; and schwa behaves like a long
> (unchecked) vowel anyway, since it can end a word.
I'll point out that I'm probably confusing the issue by referring to
my native idiolect, in which /3:/ is more like [2:] than any other
vowel on the IPA chart (although for others, particularly older
people, [@\:] or even [@:] is closer---i'd be willing to bet the
frontness of /u\:/ is strongly related to the frontness & roundedness
of /3:/). Also, at the end of utterances, Australians normally render
/@/ as [6] or [a_"] ish, and post-tonic pre-velar/palato-alveolar
where you'd expect /@/ to show up, you get /I/, and /e/ just seems a
better fit in other contexts than any other vowel to my ear.

...

> Heh, I fully expect at least some dialects to keep the traditional spelling
> even after their <i>'s are pronounced (varyingly) /a e i a: e: i: ai ei je
> ju/ and their <qu>'s /pf g Z/; but certainly some of the countries resulting
> from the 2nd American Civil War of the 2300s are going to revamp, too. :)
Well, we're part-way there already!

<A>:
(silent): militAry (though it varies)
/i:/ (fortunately nothing--i think)
/I/: sausAge
/I@/: (nothing)
/e/: militArily
/e:/: pArent
/&/: rAn
/&:/: fAn
/&i/: fAde
/a/: various borrowings e.g. HAmmAs
/a:/: grAss
/Ae/: nAive
/@u\/: (nothing, I think)
/O/: whAt
/o:/: quArter (slightly cheating)
/oi/, /U/, /u\:/, /2:/: (probably nothing)
/@/: tristAn :)

Youch, again :)

--
Tristan.

Reply