Re: Wow! It's a Yogh!

John Atkinson wrote: 
<ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx> wrote...

Neeraj Mathur wrote: 


<ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx> wrote...

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?


Of course they are. And they do have /w&-/. Others are thwack and wangle and wag and wagon. A following velar appears to block the sound change of the vowel after /w/ and /wh/ that occurs otherwise.

Also <m>: <swam> and <wham> have /&/. Conversely, <quag> has /A/.
With a following <r>, <m> doesn't block the rounding: <swarm>. We're unsure in the case of a velar, hence the alternative pronunciations of <quark>.

Colin
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: Wow! Its a Yogh!
    ... >> Neeraj Mathur wrote: ... >>> What about 'whack', in those dialects that wouldn't make it voiceless? ... pronunciation of the a in whack with "wan" but I was wrong about the ... pronunciation of wan. ...
    (sci.lang)
Quantcast