Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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 trill, yes.
> > > (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 > > > [3] 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.)
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 > that > 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 schwa-like.
> 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.
Ok. Why does the "s" get realized sometimes as [s], sometimes as [S]? And BTW, you pronounce "Christian" (the adjective) with initial [tS]? Andreas


Garth Wallace <gwalla@...>
Tristan McLeay <zsau@...>
Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>