Re: non-phonetic english spelling
From: John A Rea (j.rea2_at_insightbb.com)
Date: 12/25/04
- Next message: John A Rea: "Re: non-phonetic english spelling"
- Previous message: John A Rea: "Re: non-phonetic english spelling"
- In reply to: mb: "Re: non-phonetic english spelling"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: non-phonetic english spelling"
- Reply: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: non-phonetic english spelling"
- Reply: mb: "Re: non-phonetic english spelling"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 01:35:22 GMT
mb wrote:
>>Very strange. The FL speaker/listener's impression is rather the
>>contrary: That a majority of the final so-called schwas presented in
>>school French are totally absent from speech, according, of course, to
>>position.
>
>
> <<Yes, that too is true. Both are happening at the same time. Written
> -e's are often absent, depending on what follows, on speed, on extra
> stress, etc. But words that don't have that written -e, but just a
> final consonant (not r), follow that same pattern, i.e. the shwa
> usually isn't there, but sometimes is. It's there under the same
> circumstances as written final -e.
> Conclusion: French words cannot end in a consonant (except r).>>
>
> So any released stops are not consonants? I couldn't even understand
> what you meant before it was pointed out to me.
> Besides, this is mainly if not exclusively about final consonants in
> pausal position (otherwise border phenomena). Apart from the stops,
> which consonants will have a "final vowel"? Perhaps -r (contrary to
> some statements here), that in many people's speech does have an
> obligatory vowel-like sound if pausal.
>
>
>>Possibly then, we are back for the umpteenth time to the old story:
>>Either we have to define the elusive "schwa", or we have to provide a
>>more precise description than an all-purpose word.
>
>
>>I don't see the problem. Just listen to French radio, and it's there.
>
>
> In careful enunciation, of course there are additions, but there are
> rules. The great majority concern the sounding of an e muet. And there
> are a lot of words and situations where it is a definite no-no.
>
> The problem is a) that calling something a vowel sound, out of lack of
> familiarity or any other reason, does not make it so; b) that saying
> something is a "schwa" doesn't mean anything anymore, it's become just
> a catch-all word.
>
Here one usually refers to a "voyelle d'appui" added to permit
pronunciation of an otherwise "unpermitted" syllable cluster: and
this helping vowel turns out to be the same mid-central, slightly
rounded sound we have called "schwa" in French!
Jack
- Next message: John A Rea: "Re: non-phonetic english spelling"
- Previous message: John A Rea: "Re: non-phonetic english spelling"
- In reply to: mb: "Re: non-phonetic english spelling"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: non-phonetic english spelling"
- Reply: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: non-phonetic english spelling"
- Reply: mb: "Re: non-phonetic english spelling"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|