Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!


Neeraj Mathur wrote:
> <ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1137292744.672734.248150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Neeraj Mathur wrote:
> >> <ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > The list "were won win wee wool woo wet wane wan wine woe war wow"
> >> > seems to give an inventory of vowels and diphthongs after w. No [A:].
> >> > Whether [@] occurs after [w] is questionable.
> >>
> >> What about 'whack', in those dialects that wouldn't make it voiceless?
> >
> > [w&k], not [w@k] or [wAk], as far as I've heard.
>
> Of course; sorry, I misinterpreted the symbols. (Where have you heard
> 'whack' pronounced [wAk]? That's pretty strange!

Nowhere; I meant "not [w@k] and not [wAk]". I thought I got the
pronunciation of the a in whack with "wan" but I was wrong about the
pronunciation of wan. That introduces the question - are "whack and
wacky" used in the UK or is there no word used in EnUK with & after w?

> But that reminds me, does
> your list not omit the vowel of 'walk'?)

Sorry; I was thinking in terms of EnUK where <walk> and <war> have the
same vowel. Even <spot> and <paw> have vowels that are much the same in
quality although perhaps not in length. (listen to the pronunciation of
"spots" in the movie "101 Dalmatians").

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wow! Its a Yogh!
    ... pronunciation of the a in whack with "wan" but I was wrong about the ... pronunciation of wan. ... A following velar appears to block the sound change of ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Wow! Its a Yogh!
    ... >> What about 'whack', in those dialects that wouldn't make it voiceless? ... Neeraj Mathur ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Wow! Its a Yogh!
    ... > pronunciation of the a in whack with "wan" but I was wrong about the ... once upon a time, but I don't think it is now, even though that sound change ... >> your list not omit the vowel of 'walk'?) ...
    (sci.lang)