Re: Personal Conjugation based on Closeness
|From:||Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, April 3, 2003, 8:01|
Quoting Tristan McLeay <zsau@...>:
> 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?
The infamous American /r/ usually gets written [r\] on this list, which would
imply a alveolar trill. But my [r\`] above is meant to indicate a retroflex
> > > (I've always been pronouncing it something like [@n"dZr\e:@s]. I'm
> > > *exactly* sure what that [@] at the start really is; it make be
> > > like
> > >  or [@\]. But it is the closest pronunciation to yours my
> > > would possible support (well, slightly closer than the closest;
> > > 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
> end of a word) can be spelt in so many ways its not funny... -dry,
> -dory, -dury, -gery are the ones that spring to mine. (Happens to /tr/
> well; I first noticed this a *long* time ago... I think I was still
> to primary school (and sitting on a tram, if it matters). I wondered
> 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
> stress. (Which it doesn't.)
It is? For RPoid English too? Well, I shan't claim that the English phonology
education I've had has been in-depth.
> > 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
> final [a] or [n] long? Doesn't Swedish need one to be long? Or is that
> only in stressed syllables?)
That only applies in stress syllables, yes.
I'll happily supply a schwa in the second syllable when speaking English, but my
Swedish 'lect won't have it. Could do ['tr`Is:tEn] where the [E] is kind of
> It gets pronounced variously: ["tSr\Ist@n], ["tSr\ISt@n],
> are all acceptible; I normally use the first but I've caught myself
> the second on occasion. ["tSr\ISt@n] seems to be the preferred
> pronunciation out here in the dodgy south-eastern suburbs of
> but in Reasonable Places where it doesn't take you 1.5 hours to get to
> 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
> way that is). Obviously you could get away with [tr\Ist@n], but it's
> something that'd strike me as a bit odd.
Why does the "s" get realized sometimes as [s], sometimes as [S]?
And BTW, you pronounce "Christian" (the adjective) with initial [tS]?