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.
>
If not mistaken, that is also the distinction in Dutch between "long a"
written "aa" [a:] in a CVC monosyllable or "...aCV.." in a longer word, vs.
"short a" [A] written "a" in a CVC monosyl. or "...aCCv..." in longer ones--
maan 'moon', man 'man, husband'.  It's phonemic, however.

But IME the distinction is not that easy to hear.  I'd go for [V] as the lax
variant of [&]. (The vowel of Amer.Engl. cup, butt, luck etc.) The RP
version would work, too, "upside down a" --isn't that [6] in schmampa?

OT, but a question re the List's Official Language....I've noticed that
there are (almost?) no Dutch words that distinguish "long/short" "oe" /u/--
i.e. aside from compounds, there are no words spelled "...oeCCV..."  (except
oester 'oyster').  Why is this?

Possible answer?:  Germanic long u has diphthongized in Du. > "ui", *hu:s -
huis 'house', *mu:s - muis 'mouse'etc.; which apparently leaves Dutch /u/ as
the reflex only of Gmc. short u.  Note Du. moeder, Germ. mutter 'mother',
Du. moeten, Germ. müssen 'must'.