Re: Origins of [i\]

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.