Re: Lax counterpart of [&]?

[See below for transcript of several messages exchanged.]

Now I'm really confused!  From looking at the charts, I was under the
impression that [&] was a low front (tense) *rounded* vowel.  But I'm
pretty certain that I don't pronounce "path" and "pat" with a rounded
vowel, but with an unrounded one.  I've always thought that it was [{] that
I used for those.

BTW, Americans from the state of Wisconsin, besides giving the impression
of pronouncing the name of their home state at "Wizgonsin", have a definite
tendency to pronounce "bag" as "beg", from what I can remember, which is
similar to the South African example given below.

Another by the way...Can anyone help me out by giving me the transcription
and/or the phonetic description of the pronunciation of the Danish slashed
o?  (Koebenhavnsk dialects preferred, since that is what I am familiar
with.)  In looking over the vowel charts, I found two separate non-high
front rounded vowels ([9] and [&]) and would like to know which I have been
hearing and pronouncing.  And, while you're at it, could you kindly provide
the transcriptional symbol and/or phonetic description for the Danish ae
ligature?

Isidora


At 02:35 PM 9/12/03 -0500, you wrote:
>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

Replies