Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Lax counterpart of [&]?

From:John Cowan <jcowan@...>
Date:Thursday, September 11, 2003, 17:34
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. -- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to [Sam], a grey-clad moving hill. Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit's eyes, but the Mumak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in latter days are but memories of his girth and his majesty. --"Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit"

Replies

Tristan McLeay <zsau@...>
Roger Mills <romilly@...>
David Barrow <davidab@...>
Isidora Zamora <isidora@...>