A discourse on Phonemics (was: Re: E and e (was: A break
|From:||John Cowan <jcowan@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, May 2, 2002, 15:45|
Roger Mills scripsit:
> >Okay, maybe you have to look at it from my point of view. Which may be
> >entirely flawed, but still. [i:] is about as long as the [A:] in
> >'heart'. The vowel in 'heart' is distinguished from the vowel in 'hut'
> >by one thing: length.
> Not in quality too?? hut [hat] vs. heart [hA:t]?? Just guessing. If so, then
> phonemically you are only contrasting [low central] with [low back], with
> the length of the latter being predictable (compensatory length due to loss
> of the _r_). But if not, if you truly have [hAt] vs. [hA:t], then there has
> been a merger, and a real change in your phonemic system.
No, Tristan is perfectly correct: "heart" and "hut" are [ha:t] and [hat].
Australian English has no low back vowels at all, and the length of [a]
is phonemicized. (This on Nick Nicholas's authority.)
John Cowan <jcowan@...> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_