Re: OT Marx Brothers (was Re: Another Introduction)

And Rosta scripsit:

> So I'm wondering which phonemic form is being realized by
> Stone when (s)he says [sIn@ma]. Just for comparison, a
> Mancunian might go to the [sIn@mA] /sIn@m@/, while a Londoner
> might go to the [sIn@mA] /sin@mA:/. But any Mancunian who
> goes to the [sin@ma] would be going to the /sIn@mA:/, while
> any Londoner who goes to the [sin@ma] would be going to the
> /sIn@m@/.
Let me see if I understand this:

        London  Manchester
[@]     /@/     ?
[A]     ?       /A:/
a       /@/     /A:/

I think a possible phonemic analysis of rhotic N.A. English is to deny
that /@/ exists at all (except as a graphy for /V/, phonemic symbols being
arbitrary) in which case it is probably /"sInEm&/, given the alternation
["sIn@m@] / [sIn@"m&tIk].

--
John Cowan <jcowan@...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_