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

Daniel Andreasson wrote:
>Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
> > Does length count? Swedish (at least most variants thereof)
> > have [e:], [E:] and [E], but no [e]. [E] is one of the
> > commonest sounds, too.
>
>I've thought about this and it might be that we have [e] as
>well. The prefix (now lexicalized) _be-_ in words like
>_bedragen_, _besviken_ and _bemedlad_ are definitely pronounced
>with an [e]. At least by me. It might be [@] (or even omitted)
>in very rapid speech, but it's definitely not [E]. I say these
>words:
>
>[be"drA:g@n]
>[be"svi:k@n]
>[be"me:dlad]
>
>Not that it can be contrasted with anything. There aren't
>any minimal pairs.
>
>Thoughts?
In slow and careful speech I appear to have [be;'mA:gEn], [be;'sv_0i:k@n],
[be;'me:dlad]. In rapid speech, I seem to have something between [e], [E]
and [@] in the initial syllable. Same for the first syllable in words like
"teleskop", "telefon". If pressed for an explanation, I'd claim there's an
underlaying /e:/.

It may be noted that my mother has an phonemic contrast between /e/ and /E/.
She won't, for instance, accept that "bäst" and "best" are homophones, and
indeed pronounces them as [bEst] and [best]. Presumeably a left-over from
her native dialect Västgötska (her speech is pretty much "standard"
nowadays).

                                                      Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com