Re: vowel descriptions

Nik Taylor wrote:

> Sheets, Jeff wrote:
> > I do.  I can't possibly see myself easily pronouncing /V<r>/  but /@<r>/ is
> > trivial.  as far as I am concerned /@/ is just complete neutrality in
> > vowels, and also spoken extremely quickly.  If tk were an English word for
> > instance, I would pronounce it /t@k/  but tuk is /tVk/ to me.
>
> But can you pronounce /@/ stressed without it becoming /V/, or /V/
> unstressed without it becoming /@/?  I can't.  Also, in my dialect, it's
> not /@<r>/, but /r=/, that is, syllabic /r/.
My point was just that I don't think there's any _phonemic_ distinction
being made here, or at least in my dialect, at any rate.  In fact, if the
phone [V] only exists in a complementary distribution as you have made
above, where [V] only exists in stressed positions and [@] in unstressed,
then that is in fact the definition of allophonic variation. At least, that's
the situation in my dialect.

=======================================
Tom Wier <twier@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

  Seek not to know what must not be reveal'd,
  joys only flow where fate is most conceal'd.
  Too busy man would find his sorrows more
  if future fortunes he should know before;
  for by that knowledge of his destiny
  he would not live at all but always die.
 - the god of Dreams, in Purcell's
   _The Indian Queen_

=======================================