Re: YAEPT:Re: Schwa and [V]: Learning the IPA
|From:||daniel prohaska <danielprohaska@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 15:02|
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On 6/14/06, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
>> Yep - [U] or [V] is quite distinct from [@] for most of us Brits.
> You keep mentioning [U] and [V] together - are they merged for you? I
> know they are for some, but I thought it was a Scots thing.
"Scotland, and half of England has [U] or [u] in place of [V]."
The northern half of England - yes - most definitely, though it's not a
merger - the phoneme /U/ never split. The southern dialects (which were
subsequently carried across the Atlantic to form one of the phonological
bases for American English) split ME /U/ to /U/ and /V/. As with many such
splits /V/ must have started off as an allophonic variant. I also believe
that phonetic [V] in RP is secondary and that the original allophonic
complementary variants were [U] ~ [@] (and that American English is
phonetically conservative in this respect).
ME /U/ became [@] in Southern England except in the environment of preceding
labials or following [l] or [S], later loan words and reading pronunciation
of "book words" aloud for [@] in theses environments also. The establishment
of these loans and learned terms allowed for the formally allophonic split
to become phonemic.
In southern England new stressed /@/ became [V] in ca. 18th c.
As far as I know Scots and Scottish English both distinguish /V/ and /U/.
Like US English, Scottish English does not have phonemic vowel quantity
(examples from Hughes/Trudgill, "English Accents and Dialects", Newcastle
/i/ bee, beer, seedy, meet, meat
/I/ pit, bird, fir, city
/e/ bay, plate, weight, their, mate
/E/ pet, fern, there
/a/ bard, hat, dance, daft, half, father, farther
/O/ cot, caught, paws, pause, paw, pot, Paul, doll
/o/ pole, boat, board, nose, knows
/V/ putt, fur
/u/ pull, put, boot, poor