|From:||Tristan McLeay <conlang@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, December 8, 2005, 5:22|
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 23:04 -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On 12/7/05, Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
> There's also "reversed epsilon" (CXS ) which I at least
> modify with
> circumflex (IPA hook) for the retroflexed _stressed_ vowel of
> bird, hurt et
> al. [3^]. But I'm not sure this is proper CXS. Your [r\=] gets
> the point
> across too.
> I thought the CXS for rhotic hook was `, not ^?
Yes, that's true. ` is a rhotic hook on vowels and a retroflexion
diacritic on consonants. I can't think of what ^ means though---I think
some people might use it to denote superscripts, thus t^h instead of t_h
> The unstressed final version (as in the -er suffix) would then
> be [@^]; the
> two vowels are phonetically distinct IMO.
> Not IMD; "bird" and "encumbered" and "burred" are a three-way perfect
> rhyme. But that way lies YAEPT.
I don't mean to take you up on the YAEPT, but I am slightly curious---is
it really a perfect rhyme, and the difference in stress doesn't get in
the way? I thought most dialects had the last syllable of "encumbered"
unstressed, and rhyming is usually considered to occur from the last
stressed syllable unwards---thus "encumbered" can normally only rhyme
with two-or-more syllable words.
(At this point, Roger wrote and Mark snipped:)
> > One advantage of this system is
> > that for non-rhotic dialects, you simply drop the diacritic ^.
Not quite true---most transcriptions of non-rhotic dialects mark length,
whereas American English at least is typically written without length
marked, thus /3`/ -> /3:/ and /@`/ -> /@/. Still, in the normal way of
writing RP you can always work out from the symbols whether a length
mark should follow or not. (One common way of writing Australian English
doesn't mark length used by frex. the Macquarie Dictionary; it strikes
me as pretty silly because then the only phonetic difference
between /fVs/=[fa_"s] and /fAs/=[fa_":s] is not even mentioned.)