Re: -ire words

From: Mike Lyle (mike_lyle_uk_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: 07/18/04 

Date: 18 Jul 2004 04:55:43 -0700

"Aaron J. Dinkin" <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in message news:<cdcc60$87d5$1@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> 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.)

Meanwhile, admittedly O the precise T, in several other parts of the
forest, 'borough/burgh' and 'burrow' are in pronunciation perfectly
distinct to the least expert ear. And in some sylvan cervices they
sound the same only because both end in /@/. (In these places, 'burro'
is an exotic of uncertain pronunciation.)

Mike.