Re: 1. YAESR

Joe wrote at 2005-04-19 07:13:16 (+0100)
 > Tim May wrote:
 >
 > >How is /z/ almost non-phonemic in Engish?  There are hundreds of
 > >minimal pairs in RP.
 >
 > Yes?  Well, I couldn't think of any at the time, though now I can
 > think of bass /bEjs/ and baize /bEjz/.  But I also have a length
 > distinction - so the latter is more like [bE:iz].
 >

Isn't that predictable before a voiced consonant?

You might find this page useful:
http://www.marlodge.supanet.com/wordlist/

/s/ vs /z/ is here:http://www.marlodge.supanet.com/wordlist/SUEZOO.txt

I don't agree with all of them - sometimes there's a vowel difference.
I don't know if this is me diverging from RP, or if those are supposed
to be predictable secondary effects, or what.  But most of them do
work for me.

 > Either way, I suspect you could spell them, in that case, as
 > 'beiss' and 'beis', respectively - maybe.

That was what I was thinking.  I don't see any better solution
(although you clearly know more about Welsh than me).  You could cut
down on <ss>s a bit by writing 's and plural -s as <s> even when
they're phonetically [s]; e.g. <cats> rather than <catss>.  It's
underlyingly /z/ anyway, IIRC.

 >
 > >I like the scheme, though.
 > >
 > >(You pronounce "one" [wQn]?)
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > Yes - is that unusual?  It's certainly the norm in this area (south
 > Oxfordshire).

Statistically, I don't know.  It may be quite common - it just
surprised me.  What I have for "one" (and "won"), and what my
dictionaries say, is [wVn];  [wQn] is "wan".

Reply