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

On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 15:08, Raymond Brown wrote:

[Talk of the primary feature.]

Consider an hypothetical language. It has the following consonants:
[x s t_D p] (and no others). None are allophones for the other; each are
individual sounds. Nor do any have any (important) allophones. What is
the primary distinction between [x] and [p]? POA or TOA? Should they be
phonematicised as /x/ and /k/ or /k/ and /p/? Or as /x/ and /p/?

> >The presence of /A/ and /A:/ doesn't mean there has to be a
> >/3\/ as well as /3\:/.
>
> Sorry, I don't follow the logic here. What variety of has [A], and isn't
> [3\:] considered to be phonemically the 'long' or 'tense' counterpart of
> /@/?
Melburnian does. Maybe the rest of Australian too, I don't know. And
about [3\:]~[@], I don't think so. Otherwise, wouldn't we (i.e. Aussies)
say that NZers said 'fersh 'n' cherps' (and not 'fush 'n' chups').

> [snip]
> >
> >Okay, maybe you have to look at it from my point of view. Which may be
> >entirely flawed, but still. [i:] is about as long as the [A:] in
> >'heart'. The vowel in 'heart' is distinguished from the vowel in 'hut'
> >by one thing: length.
>
> Not in most (all?) varieties of northern hemisphere English.
Never said that was the case. I did say from my point of view,
establishing that this was from here and not England and America, or at
least that was my intention.

> [snip]
> >/i/. But the first part of the diphthong /I@/, in such words as 'beer',
> >has the same quality as that of 'bit' (at least to my ear). There exists
> >an allophone of /I@/ in contexts like 'beer is': [I:].
>
> It varies over here between [bI@], [bi@], [bi:`], [bi:r] (with trilled /r/.
Is there are contrast between 'beer is' and *'bee riz'?

> [snip]
> >
> >(In case anyone was wondering, I speak 'normal' Melburnian* Australian
> >English.
>
> Like in Erinsborough?   :)
Well, isn't Erinsborough in NSW? ;) (<--- I know it's recorded in
Melbourne) To be honest, I don't know if they're using normal speech or
not. I've only briefly watched the show (about long enough to walk into
the loungeroom and turn the tv. off). And anyway, I'm no good at hearing
accents on the television.

> >the 3 phonetic lengths that we see in e.g. "beat, bead, bean" are also
> >assigned by rules at the surface level.
>
> Yep - certainly not a phonemic feature, but IMO those who put forward
> short~long opposition as a constituent part of the phonemic distinction
> between [i:] and [I] should not IMO ignore the difference of length in
> other context. Just like "beat, bead, bean", the /I/ in "bit, bid, bin"
> also differs in length.
Not for me, and I didn't realise/remember it did for others, quite
probably a source of my wanting to use /i:/ ~ /I/.

> similarly 'subsidence' was pronounces with
> stress on first syllable, and the rest unstressed ["sVsIdn=s], but now
> [s@b"saIdn=s] is not uncommon among speakers of all 'classes' - and so I
> could go on.
Is there supposed to be a /b/ in 'subsidence'? ([s@b"saIdn=s] sounds
horribly horrible to my ears. I've only heard it ["sAbs@d@ns].)

> ======================
>    XRICTOC ANECTH
> ======================
What does this mean?

Tristan

Reply