Re: YEAPT: f/T (was Re: Other Vulgar Latins?)

>On 22/02/06, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
>
>
>>On 2/21/06, Tristan Alexander McLeay <conlang@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>infuse enthuse
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>I would consider them to be /Infju\:s/ vs /InTu\:s/ (with /fj/ vs /T/).
>>>
>>>
>>Oh, good point.  I missed that.  I suppose some 'lects must have /Tju/
>>in the latter, but not mine.
>>
>>
>
>I think it dies at the same time as /lj/ and /sj/ mostly do, so I'd
>guess that conservative RP has it, but younger forms don't.
>
I don't have /sj/ or /lj/, but I do have [Tj]. I'd say my accent is
young RP.


>
>
>On 22/02/06, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
>
>
>>On 2/21/06, Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:43:24 -0500, Keith Gaughan <kmgaughan@...>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>half hearth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I don't know any dialect of English where these two are a minimal pair,
>>>>rhotic or non-rhotic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I have /hAf/ ~ /hAT/. In non-careful enough speech, I can have /A:f/ for
>>>both of them.
>>>
>>>
>
>I'm not sure what the distinction you're trying to draw between /A:/
>and /A/ is, Paul. Could you elaborate, or is it just a typo/thinko?
>
>
Mine would be /?A:f/~/hA:f/.  The former in more colloquial registers,
the latter in more formal.