> > >A "trade-off". (Trade-ins completely replace one thing with another.)
> >
> > Uh? So how is a trade-off any different then?
>
>"Trade-off" is the one
>that tends to get used figuratively.
OK, OK...
> > 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...
That's where I got the idea. There is more to the issue, however, but I'll
restrain myself.
> > 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 (...) 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.
I see.
>Well, we're part-way there already!
[list]
>Youch, again :)
>
>--
>Tristan.
Nice list; youch indeed. You win one (1) free internet.
John Vertical