Re: vowel descriptions
| From: | Tom Wier <artabanos@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, December 15, 1998, 17:20 |
|---|
Nik Taylor wrote:
> Tom Wier wrote:
> > You actually make a phonemic distinction between /V/ and /@/?
>
> Actually, no. /V/ is simply the stressed allophone of /@/, and yet the=
y
> sound distinct to me, that's why I distinguish them in transcription.
> Odd, you'd expect allophones to sound the same to a native speaker, muc=
h
> as [t] and [t_h] do.
Well, what's distinct to a person is only that because of their exposure
to certain environments. Also, I suppose, added to this are things like
innate linguistic awareness, and just plain how much you care about
language. If language is unimportant to you, then it will certainly be
something of little importance whether we are trying to describe [V]
or [@].
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Tom Wier <twier@...>
ICQ#: 4315704 AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
"S=F4=F0 is gecy=FEed / =FE=E6t mihtig God manna
cynes / w=EAold w=EEde-ferh=F0."
_Beowulf_, ll. 700-702
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D