|From:||Tristan Mc Leay <kesuari@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, August 3, 2004, 20:27|
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 22:10, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 05:15:11PM +1000, Tristan Mc Leay wrote:
> > My problems with it are that it doesn't note stress...
> Right. At first I took the accents to indicate stress, but who
> accents "November" on the first syllable?
> I don't see the value in removing the capitalization convention, either.
I don't necessarly see the point in keeping either, though :)
> > _To_ for 'to' but _pur_ for 'poor' strikes me as amazingly
> > and unbelievably backward (historically the both represent the same
> > vowel
> But in many modern dialects they no longer do so.
I know, but in those modern dialects (like mine), to has a u-vowel and
poor an o-vowel.
> Also, I don't know if this was continuing your previous point or
> starting a new one, but if the former - the word "to" has
> no schwa in my 'lect. Except for set phrases in which it desyllabifies
> to /t/, or morphs into unrecognizability (e.g. /gUn@/ for "going to"), it is
> always /tu/, even when unstressed. So that's not a case of schwa
No, it wasn't. FM, /tu\/ is [t_h@] (except when morphed into
unrecognisability etc.) in unstressed syllables, except before vowels,
when it retains the [u\]... same as all similar words... ('you' comes to
Tristan Mc Leay <kesuari@...>