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