From: benlizro@ihug.co.nz   
      
   On 22/03/2025 7:59 p.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:   
   > 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,   
      
   I would say it's a weird pronunciation of "Galveston", with an extra   
   stress that shouldn't be there. But given that pronunciation, there's   
   nothing wrong with the rhyme.   
      
   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.   
      
   But we know the answer to that one is that they are not phonetically   
   similar. Whereas [ə] and [ʌ] certainly are.   
   Personally, as a speaker of NAmEng, I consider the theory intuitively   
   plausible. It also accounts for why, for many speakers, the stressed   
   forms of words like "of" and "from" have [ʌ].   
      
   > 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.   
      
   A phonological version of the Etymological Fallacy?   
      
   > 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.   
      
   They're quite distinct for me, too. What you mean is that in S-B (RP?)   
   the (various) unstressed vowels have sorted themselves into just two   
   groups, where as for me (and I guess most NAmEng speakers, and others)   
   there's only one.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)