----- Original Message -----
From: "Tristan McLeay" <zsau@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 9:27 PM
Subject: 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]?
I always thought the Aussies tended to pronounce [&] as [E]. Just goes to
show, really.