Re: Lax counterpart of [&]?

On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:47:53PM -0400, Isidora Zamora wrote:
> But what is the lax counterpart of either [a] or [A]?
Probably [V] or [@].

> (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?  I'm
> hoping that I've used the right symbol.  I'm trying to talk about the
> difference in sound between a low front unrounded vowel and a low back
> unrounded vowel.)
The only way I know how to distinguish [A] and [a] is by reference to
specific American dialects.  To me, [a] sounds like an "[&]-flavored [A]".
It is the sound of the first <o> in the native pronounciation of "Boston",
and also of the <a> in the native pronunciation of "Chicago".  (In some
Midwestern dialects it is also somewhat nasalized, hence the "twang", but
I'm referring to the vowel quality itself independent of any nasalization.)
In Standard American English, both of those vowels are [A].

Don't know if that's any help at all . . .

-Mark