Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 19:33:44 -0400
On Mon, 26 May 2008 15:14:22 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:2b8e9ba9-f558-48ad-a0fb-c7c917425d49@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in sci.lang:
On May 26, 2:45 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 03:44:52 -0700 (PDT),
"ranjit_math...@xxxxxxxxx" <ranjit_math...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
in
<news:1b441c51-6522-45e8-926c-d6cccdc680cb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in sci.lang:
[...]
Ah! In dialects where "hoarse" != "horse", would you call
the hoarse vowel ([o:]?) an allophone of /@U/?
The U.S. varieties that preserve the hoarse/horse
distinction don't have a phoneme that could plausibly be
represented by /@U/. In Fromkin & Rodman terms <go> and
<stone> have /o/; in Trager-Smith terms it's /ow/. I don't
know whether it contrasts with the <hoarse> vowel in these
varieties; I suspect that it does, and that /oH/ would be a
reasonable T-S representation.
Actually it was Gleason who changed T-S's /h/ to (small
cap) /H/, because he _didn't_ identify the centralizing
glide with the breathed consonant, complementary
distribution notwithstanding.
I know; I just didn't consider it worth mentioning.
Brian
.
- References:
- The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: 2.7182818284590...
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: LEE Sau Dan
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Richard Wordingham
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Richard Wordingham
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: John Atkinson
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Richard Wordingham
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: John Atkinson
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Richard Wordingham
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: John Atkinson
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- Prev by Date: Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- Next by Date: Re: Baghdad
- Previous by thread: Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- Next by thread: Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|