Re: Vowels?

Christophe Grandsire scripsit:

> No you're not wrong. The difference between British and American 'r' is indeed
> retroflexion, marked in X-SAMPA by `. So the British have [r\], and the
> Americans [r\`]. Since Australian English is non-rhotic, I'd guess that you
> have [r\] :)) (don't shoot me if I'm wrong either :)) ).
Well, for me qua American, there is no retroflexion in my /r/ whatsoever;
it is the approximant version of the fricative z-with-curly-tail
(too lazy to look up X-SAMPA equivalent): the tip of my tongue is
behind my lower teeth.   I believe this is also Mandarin /r/.

What's really amazing about this is what a variety of sounds can
all come across as /r/, even if with a foreign or cross-dialect
accent.  How is it that the difference between an alveolopalatal
approximant and a uvular trill can be heard as mere sub-phonological
surface noise?  Someone who rendered /T/ as [X] would experience
no such tolerance.

--
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan

Replies