Re: YAEPT:Re: Phonological musings (was: Announcement: New auxlang "Choton")

Joe wrote:

> Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
> >PS A similar oddity is his use of "were" as an example of Elvish 'e',
> >which
> >otherwise seem to be monophthongal - the RPoid English I learnt has [we@]
> >for
> >"were". I suppose Tolkien's 'lect differed here; dialectal variation
> >'tween
> >[we:] and [we@] is, of course, easily believable.
Is Elvish "e" supposed to be [e] or [E]? (Or both, depending...?)

>
> Sorry, but no dialect I'm aware of has [we@] for 'were'.  'where', yes,
> but not 'were'.  'Were' is [w3:], IME
That was my impression, too, from a US-POV. Also surprising was Paul
Bennett's "[w6:]", perhaps a mis-typing? since [6] is IMO very much an
[a]-like sound.

OTOH in British TV programs depicting life among the Upper Classes (1), I
have heard oddities-- something close to [wE@] for 'were', something like
[sez] for 'says' (Murrcan [sEz]), not to mention [gEl] for 'girl' (or
'gal'?), [Et] for the past tense or participle of 'eat'.

RP in general (*just my impression, mind you*) seems to raise/front/tense
all the low vowels, and the South Africans I've encountered do it quite
noticeably.  JRRT was born there, wasn't he?, though I don't know if he
lived there long enough to acquire an indelible accent.
----------------------
(1) I have in mind the old Wodehouse/Bertie Wooster series, the
Christie/Poirot series, the Trollope/Palliser series, and "Brideshead
Revisited"; the first two, at least, may be more satirical than accurate in
their depictions, and of course, all are set well in the past.

Replies