Re: 1. YAESR

Tim May wrote:

>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.
>
>
Or possibly underlyingly /s/.  I can't imagine an [s] occuring after a
voiced consonant.  I was planning only to double it when there's
ambiguity.  (e.g. 'Ssw' 'Sue' and 'Sw' 'Zoo'). Of course, I don't think
it's attested in Welsh, but it has precedent (ff vs. f).

> >
> > >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".
>
>
>
Interesting.  I merge 'one' and 'wan' as [wQn], but not 'won' [wVn].

Reply