Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ    Attic   

Re: Origins of [i\]

From:Roger Mills <romiltz@...>
Date:Monday, February 23, 2009, 22:18
Andrew wrote:
> The following description comes from New Zealand English > <deep breath> A > Guide To The Correction Pronunciation Of English, With > Special > Reference To New Zealand Conditions And Problems</deep > breath>, by Pr. > Arnold Wall, 1959. > > Short i: One very serious and widespread mispronunciation > gives an > unstressed short "i", whether as a syllable or in > a independent word, > the value of the obscure vowel [@]. Thus > "Alice," "Philip," "malice," > become "Allus" [&l@s], "Phillup" or > "Phullup" or even "Phulp" [fIl@p, > fUl@p, fUlp], "malluss" [m&l@s].
Redudction of the unstressed /i/ in words like those is common in US speech (maybe more in casual than "proper" register), but we don't reduce the main vowels like your [fUl@p] ex. And often (casual again)--
> "It" appears as "ut" [@t} in "is > ut?" > [Iz @t].
and the common expression "lookit" variant of "look,...." ['lUk@t] But none of these--
> Before "l" also short "i" is often > obscured. The name "Bill" becomes > [b@l], in ordinary spelling nearer to "Bull" than > "Bill". "Milk" > and "silk," as in Cockney speech, become > "mulk," "sulk," > or "mjolk," "sjolk." > "Children" becomes "chuldren" [tSUldr\@n].
...except in some Southern imitative-dialect writing (and older black folks everywhere) "children" is often transcribed as "chirren" ['tS@r\@n][tSIr\@n] or [tS1r\@n] which I've heard in radio/TV interviews.