From: rh@rudhar.com
Sat, 22 Mar 2025 09:46:53 +1300: Ross Clark
scribeva:
>Here's how the phonemic analysis of AmEng that I was taught many years
>ago treats this:
>The vowel of the -ton syllable is [?]; it occurs only unstressed.
Shwa. (My crappy old Agent program can see nor post IPA (although it
can post in UTF8). But I easily guessed what you posted, and confirmed
it by looking under the hood, in the data file. Linux IS fully Unicode
enabled.)
>It's in complementary distribution with the phonetically similar [?] in
Upside down v.
>"gun" and "one", which occurs only stressed.
>So the two are allophones of one phoneme.
>(In the current pronunciation regime of OED, all three of these vowels
>are written as .*)
Yes, I understand that’s the explanation. But I still think it’s a
weird rhyme, because of the stress difference, and because in my view
(which is not mainstream and is not scientifically based, I know),
they are not the same phoneme. Being in complementary distribution
isn’t enough of a criterion for that. and are also in
complementary distribution, but clearly not the same phoneme, and they
couldn’t ever rhyme.
I also consider the history of the language and the phonemes. I know
very well that according to any phonemic theory, and PTD, I shouldn’t,
but I do it anyway. The BUG vowel has an unrounded [o] realisation in
Northern England, which shwa could never have. (when stressed)
and and , and have the same vowel there. The
origin and sound of shwa in English, as in Galveston, is totally
different and unconnected.
This also reminds me of a discussion we had years ago, about Memphis
sounding like Memphus, in a song sung by Cher. Unthinkable in
South-Brit. The THIS and THUS vowels are always distinct there.
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
