Re: -ire words

From: Aaron J. Dinkin (dinkin_at_babel.ling.upenn.edu)
Date: 07/17/04 

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:19:28 +0000 (UTC)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:48:44 GMT, Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Aaron J. Dinkin wrote:
>
>> As I indicated elsewhere ("I have no desire to call the vowel in "cut"
>> schwa"), I'm not tying myself to Smith-Trager. I'd rather use a
>> phonemicization that actually fits my dialect. (In particular, having to
>> use /@/ for [V] and /@r/ for [R] would make "burrow" and "burro"
>> indistinguishable, and I for one can tell an ass from a hole in the
>> ground.)
>
> The words, however, are homophonous,

Ain't so, so there.

> as is "borough" as well (but not "borrow"),

I have "borough" like "burrow", but not "burro".

> unless of course you use a Hispanicizing "b/uw/rro."

Nope. They're ['bVrow] and ['bRow].

> If you don't recognize "cut" as a stressed shwa, then you are
> multiplying entities -- there is no need for a /V/ ~ /@/ contrast.

You and I have been through this before. If you have the "hurry"/"furry"
vowel merger it's your loss, but there's no need for you to impose it on
the rest of us.

(I used "burrow"/"burro" for my example because they're both
monomorphemic, and because I like the "ass from a hole in the ground"
joke; but I can't say for certain whether other people without the
"hurry"/"furry" merger make this particular distinction in the same way as
I do. We were talking about my own personal phonemic system, however, so
nothing is lost by my choice of example.)

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom