Re: Retroflex vowels?

In a message dated 1/27/02 1:44:18 AM, AL260@AOL.COM writes:

>Hmm.... NYC SPEECH?? I don't think so....all the people that I've heard
>who come from my dear city (well, I live 30 minutes away..but, it's still
>my city)...say:
>
>[S@r]  <sure>
>[SOr]  <shore>
>(Although it might be [Sor], i can't really decide. I'm sitting here saying
>the word..and it's not making sense to me anymore! :) But it's definitely
>not homophonous with sure.
>
>Elliott
I live a bit further away than you - around 1.5 hrs from NYC (depending on
traffic) (to the east), and I'm pretty sure that /u/ and /O/ are merging
before /r/ (=that American "r").
I have a three-way alternation for "sure":
/Sur/, /SOr/, and /S@r/
The last may just exist because it's such a common word that the vowel gets
reduced as much as possible, and the first exists, I think, only in careful
pronunciation.
"tour"/"tore" is another example, with /tOr/ often replacing /tur/. Actually,
I sometimes try to correct myself after starting to pronounce "tour" as /tOr/,
 and end up somewhere in the middle. What else ... "lure", "demure",
"pure".... The word "mural", though, definitely has /@r/ rather than /ur/ or
/Or/. Most likely, eventually there will be no /ur/ left here at all,
whatever it eventually turns into (unless of course, it arises again from
something else - like, say, /uw@r/ sequences, as in "sewer" or "newer").
On the other hand, nothing like this happens before /l/ around here.

I thought I'd try to put an ObConlang in here, but I can't think of anything
relevant. :-/

Josh Roth
http://members.aol.com/fuscian/eloshtan.html