Re: English diglossia (was Re: retroflex consonants)

On 2003.02.01 23:58 Joseph Fatula wrote:
> From: "Tristan" <kesuari@...>
> Subject: Re: English diglossia (was Re: retroflex consonants)
>
>
> > One of my examples was 'unfortunately', which has the root
> 'fortune',
> > in which '-tune' makes 'tchoon' in most, if not every, English
> dialect.
>
> Oh.  Well, it's not quite "tchoon" in every English dialect.  The
> "tune" of
> "unfortunately" reduces down quite a bit for me.  It ends up being
> /@nfortSnI'li/.  And in words where it doesn't reduce down that much,
> it's
> like "chin", as in "fortune"/"four chin".
>
> So if we change "fortune" to "fortchoon", some of us would be writing
> "forchin".  And the spelling reform throws all the dialect barriers
> into the
> written language.
>
No-one *ever* needs to comment about how they pronounce a word
differently from an example I provide, especially when it's unstressed,
because I'll consider the unstressed form and the stressed form
equivalent because, apparently, my dialect is highly likely to reduce
vowels to /@/ that aren't in others. Anyway, the relevant part of the
example was the /tS/ bit, because <long u> often is /u: or @/.

Sorry, everyone's complained about the you-know-what threads, and what
you've done is how they start...

In another post, he also wrote:
> And I didn't know if all Australian accents were non-rhotic, or only
> some.  Or perhaps there's only one accent there.
All Australian accents are non-rhotic and they hardly differ from one
another. Though I (being Melburnian) say /m&lb@n/ for 'Melbourne' but a
Sydneysider says /melb@n/ (and the same for any /el/s, and it's not
prevented by syllable boundaries: /f&l@/ for 'fella'.

Tristan.