Ray Brown wrote:
>> I don't mean a vl. [w]. At least, I'm quite sure I don 't.
>But that is what [w_0] is.
So, [hw] = [w_0]? If I can ever find my IPA cd, I'll have to pay attention to how
they say this. The term "voiceless w" doesn't sit well. Mostly because it's not
really vl.
>> How do you pronounce it?
>[w_0] :)
Cheeky monkey!
>In the registers where I would make a distinction between _which_ >and _witch_
>the former is voiceless [w].
>> My [hw] is like my [kw] except that there is an [h] in stead of a >>[k]. I hope
>> that makes some sense.
>It certainly does. That's how I'm sure my Saxon ancestors >pronounced it and
>why they wrote it as {hw} - and
Certanly makes more sense than <wh>. But at least it's still differentiated from <w>!
>not the silly Norman {wh}; and the sound combo still survives this >side of the
>pond (or did till recently) in parts of Scotland. (Are you >sure you're not a
>crypto-Shetlander? ;)
Pretty sure I'm not!
Padraic.
>Ray.