Re: Lax counterpart of [&]?

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