Re: Personal Conjugation based on Closeness
|From:||Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, April 2, 2003, 10:40|
Quoting Tristan McLeay <zsau@...>:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > Interesting pronunciation of my name, anyways. Anglophones typically
> > whatever phone they have in "man" for the first syllable; do you have
> [a] there?
> > I do hope [e@] is not meant to be a diphthong!
> > The One True and Correct pronunciation is of course
> One true and correct yet you list two?
That's known as having a sense of humour! :-)
More to the point, [r`] and [r\`] belongs to the same phoneme; which gets used
depends mostly on talking speed. OTOH, rendering the second "a" as schwa is
right out of the question.
> (I've always been pronouncing it something like [@n"dZr\e:@s]. I'm not
> *exactly* sure what that [@] at the start really is; it make be more
>  or [@\]. But it is the closest pronunciation to yours my dialect
> would possible support (well, slightly closer than the closest; the
> closest would have [e:s] or [e:r\@s] at the end).)
Well, that affricate sure sounds a bit weird ... as for schwas and wrong kind of
r it's not much to worry about. Were I to anglify it myself I might end up with
[&n'dr\i:&s], assuming that I care to use an Englishish r and care that the
version of English I learnt don't have [e:].
When speaking Swedish, I'd render your name ['tr`Is:tan]. How bad does that make