Re: Lax counterpart of [&]?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, 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.
Surely not most, but only some words with a(n unvoiced) fricative or nasal
following.

> > 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 RP had changed [&] to [a]? That's certainly how I hear it.
Perhaps some Southern Hemispheric dialects though.... (whuch I guiss could
explain what started the chainshuft thet means New Zillenders speak like
thus (un relation to how I speak, of course).

--
Tristan                  <kesuari@...>

Yesterday I was a dog. Today I'm a dog. Tomorrow I'll probably still
be a dog. Sigh! There's so little hope for advancement.
                -- Snoopy

Replies