Re: E and e (was: A break in the evils of English (or, Sturnan is beautiful))

Roger Mills wrote:

>Do Forster and Foster contrast for you, or are they the same?  I'd guess
>Forster might have a longer vowel, or a schwa offglide???
>
No, they're different in quality and length (/fQst@/ and /fO:st@/).
However, /fO:st@/ sounds fake, like /kO:stIk/ or /O:strij@/. Whether
that's because it 'should be' /fQst@/ or because I'm used to saying what
English people say /O:st/ for as /Qst/, I don't know.

>There aren't many other ...orsC# words, and they tend to be past tense
>forms, like forced, coursed, (contrast with "cost"?); a few more -ors#
>horse, force, course, gorse, source (vs. sauce?), Morse (vs. moss?), Norse;
>and lots with -orC#
>
Nah, it has to be specifically the -orst# thing, only words like
'caustic' (i.e. caustic soda) and 'Austria' change---'Aussie' is
pronounced /Qzi/ because it's derived from 'Australia'. 'Coursed' and
'cost' do contrast. Dunno if it has anything to do with it being a past
tense or not.

Tristan