Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: vowel descriptions

From:Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
Date:Wednesday, December 16, 1998, 5:31
Eric Christopherson wrote:

> > The so-called (and IMO wrongly called) "short" vowels /&/ /O/ /V/ do =
not
> > normally occur in unstressed positions and give way to shwa. It's my > > understanding that the phonemic status of [@] in English is somewhat > > controversial, and is one of those awkwark customers that delight tho=
se who
> > do not subscribe whole-heartily to the phonemic theory. > > I have heard words where at least /&/ in unstressed position is > definately /&/ and not /@/, as in 'raccoon' (one of my favorite > animals :D ) /r&'kun/. To me, /r@'kun/ sounds British. I am in the > Midwestern US.
Well, I think in the more common words it's most common to have a schwa, or even a syllabic nasal or something like that. I could easily imagine saying (and indeed, it would be normal to say) [ai kn gou n&u] for "I can go now". Remember, that in careful speech lots of normal rules don't apply, especially ones like vowel reduction to schwa. =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