Re: vowel descriptions

> 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/.
>
Of course /@/ stressed is /V/, and I make a distinction between the two.
/b/ unvoiced is /p/, but you could just as easily write it /p_0/ (using the
SAMPA system.)  I still write /p/.  Whenever I see /@/ stressed, I make it
/V/ unstressed.  Tom says these are allophones in his dialect (I am assuming
of English) and it is so with me as well, one is stressed, the other is
unstressed.  I generally don't like introducing stress into phonetics,
because stress is more of a language construct to me, than a sound
difference.  I also don't understand the difference you make between /@<r>/
(Kirshenbaum) and /r=/ (SAMPA)  As far as I am concerned, they are one and
the same.  Are they different?  Can you give examples of differences that I
might also make in my dialect of English?
> --
> "Cats are rather delicate creatures and they are subject to a good many
> ailments, but I never heard of one who suffered from insomnia." --
> Joseph Wood Krutch
> http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files/
> ICQ #: 18656696
> AOL screen-name: NikTailor
>