Re: CHAT: Tiri'n script was Re: chat: a conlang of my very own :)

On Sunday 02 June 2002 07:43 am, Tristan McLeay wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-06-02 at 10:12, Peter Clark wrote:
> >         Ah; all is clear. In X-SAMPA, the accented vowels are / { I @ E U
> > /. However, most people on the list replace /{/ with /&/, since
> > "ampersand" starts with the same vowel and it just looks better. Hmm--I
> > don't know how you pronounce "but"; another alternative vowel is / V /,
> > which is pronounced very close to /@/. (/@/, BTW, is called a schwa; the
> > general rule seems to be if you do not distinguish between /@/ and /V/,
> > then just use /@/. Sloppy, and I expect to be upbraided for every saying
> > so, but there you have it. :)
>
> Here's one person doing it now. /@/ and /V/ are no more similar than /@/
> and /E/ are. It's just that some American accents merge the two.
> (Whereas mine makes them even more distinct: /V/ is pronounced more like
> /A/ or /a/ or something.) Too call them silimar on the grounds that one
> accent merges is the same as calling /I/ and /@/ similar (New Zealand),
> or /@/ and /E/ similar.
        *cough* Hmm--I should not have said "very close," should I? That was a red
herring. I should have just stuck with "if you do not distinguish between /@/
and /V/, then just use /@/." I have yet to meet a native English speaker who
has /V/ but not /@/. (Although I would be very interested if such a critter
exists.) What I was sloppy in was not distinguishing /@/ and /V/ as potential
allophones. (Besides the red herring, that is. :)

> If I were you, I'd use /{ I V E U/, if nothing else than for
> consistancy's sake: /V/ is the backed version of /E/ so it's more
> symmetrical. And perhaps even likely, but I don't know about that.
        If it were for a conlang, I would agree. However, given that it seems to be
used primarily to write English, and given that the word in question was
"but", I think it's still probably safe to conclude /@/.
        :Peter