Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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@...> I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_


And Rosta <a-rosta@...>[CONLANG] A discourse on Phonemics (was: Re: E and e (was: A break