Re: GROUPLANG: affix morphology

De: Pablo Flores <fflores@...>
Fecha: Jueves 15 de Octubre de 1998 10:32

>>In my proposed phonology/orthography unstressed vowels have a different
>>value than stressed in open or close syllabes.  Thus:
>>kjak + f/v = kjakyf, would sound ['kjA.k@f]
>>kjak + ve = kjaghve, would sund ['kjaG.ve] or
>>kjak + ve = kjagyve, would sund ['kja.g@.ve]
>>with an untensed [e].
>>(Note the marked voice agreement)
>
>I agree about having a difference between vowels according to
>stress and position in the syllable, but I think it should only
>be made by tenseness and perhaps proximity like [a], [A], [&].
>But having the schwa as a "universal variant" in unstressed
>syllables looks a bit too much like English. I'd like to have
>vowels clearly pronounced within certain limits. My tendency
>in particular would be to pronounce /@/ for medial unstressed
>unrounded vowels in open syllables, such as the second /a/
>in _kjakave_ (kjak + -ve = kjakave to me ['kja.k@.ve])
>
>--Pablo
Well, in my proposals only untensed <y> would be a schwa, al other vowels
should be untensed but clear at unstressed positions.

-- Carlos Th