Re: English notation

Dennis Paul Himes wrote:

>     You have more digraphs than phones here.  My guess is that [tS] for "ch"
> is missing.
D'oh.


>     Why to you distinguish [V] and [@]?  Is that a phonemic distinction in
> any dialect of English?
I can't think of a minimal pair right now, since [@] is always in
unstressed positions and [V] isn't (since it's [@] when unstressed, like
many other phonemes).  In fact, you could indeed use the same symbol for
the two phonemes, although they definitely are two phonemes.


>     I can't figure out what "sursiz" is.  "Sources" maybe?  That would be
> "sorsez".
Yep, sources.  In fact, I pronounce it /sorsIz/ too, but I thought that
was a quirk of my own English.  ;-)

Also, it was supposed to mean "any sources"; the fact that I wrote <æn
sursiz> is simply a stupid typo.


--  Christian Thalmann