Re: Lax counterpart of [&]?

John Cowan wrote:

>Isidora Zamora scripsit:
>
>
>
>>(I haven't yet decided whether I'm using [a] or [A], as
>>a matter of fact, I am none too clear on what the diference in sound is
>>between those two vowels.  Can anyone point me in the right direction?
>>
>>
>
>Well, if you listen to the difference between the Boston and RP versions of
>most words that other Americans use [&] for, like "path", "grass", etc.,
>you will hear [a] in New England and [A] in Old England.
>
>
>
>>BTW, I looked through the various vowel charts at the back of the _Phonetic
>>Symbol Guide_, and I could't find anything that looked like it could
>>possibly be a lax low front rounded vowel.
>>
>>
>
>The articulatory facts are that [&] only exists in ATR form, and the RTR equivalent
>is [E].  No matter how low your jaw gets, you only produce [E] until you add ATR
>as well.  This is probably why modern RP has switched for the most part from
>[&] to [E] in rendering /&/, while moving /E/ up a bit -- it's easier to say.
>American as usual remains more conservative.
>
>
>
I thought accents like South African had [&] to [E] so they make <pat>
sound like <pet>

David Barrow

Reply