Re: Personal Conjugation based on Closeness
|From:||Tristan McLeay <zsau@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, April 2, 2003, 11:01|
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > > The One True and Correct pronunciation is of course
> > [an'dr`e:as]~[an'dr\`e:as].
> > One true and correct yet you list two?
> That's known as having a sense of humour! :-)
If you insist :)
> 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.
[r\`] is the American r, isn't it? retroflex approximate?
> > (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
> > like
> >  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 ...
Feature of the dialect of English I speak. It means that /dZri/ (at the
end of a word) can be spelt in so many ways its not funny... -dry, -dary,
-dory, -dury, -gery are the ones that spring to mine. (Happens to /tr/ as
well; I first noticed this a *long* time ago... I think I was still going
to primary school (and sitting on a tram, if it matters). I wondered why
chr would spell /kr/ and tr /tSr/. )
> 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:].
That [&] at the end is a big no-no unless that syllable has the primary
stress. (Which it doesn't.)
> When speaking Swedish, I'd render your name ['tr`Is:tan]. How bad does that make
> you cringe?
Not too bad. I much rather a [@] before the [n], though. (Why isn't that
final [a] or [n] long? Doesn't Swedish need one to be long? Or is that
only in stressed syllables?)
It gets pronounced variously: ["tSr\Ist@n], ["tSr\ISt@n], ["tSr\IStS@n]
are all acceptible; I normally use the first but I've caught myself using
the second on occasion. ["tSr\ISt@n] seems to be the preferred
pronunciation out here in the dodgy south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne,
but in Reasonable Places where it doesn't take you 1.5 hours to get to the
city by public transport, I think my pronunciation is the commoner.
["tSr\IstS@n] is not because if you think it's pronounced like that,
you're likely to spell it <Tristian> or---worse---<Christian> (With no
offence to Christian or any Christians here, but I'd rather people
misspell it in a way that isn't a name known to me than misspell it in a
way that is). Obviously you could get away with [tr\Ist@n], but it's
something that'd strike me as a bit odd.
War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.