Re: "y" and "r"

On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Raymond Brown wrote:

> At 10:58 am +0100 30/3/01, And Rosta wrote:
> >Ray:
> >> But quite frankly I find the likelihood of mistaking English 'oo' in 'bOOt'
> >> for [y] rather than [u] surprising to say the least.
> >
> >Depends where Daniel's from.
>
> I think not.  Daniel is describing something he is touting as an
> _international_ auxiliary language.  Surely, anyone in their right mind who
> is doing that is going to use forms which non-native speakers generally
> recognize as 'standard'.  I think few outside of the UK - and, indeed, not
> that many inside the UK - will know how /u/ is pronounced in Lancashire!
Much agreed.  Though "standard" might depend on where the non-native
speaker comes from.  (South) Koreans invariably learn the "standard"
*American*
variant of English, maybe because of the fact that the U.S. 8th Army is
plunked in their country.  Others are going to have something closer to
"standard" British English.  (I was going to say Hong Kong and India
probably, but that's a guess on my part based on a small sample of
English-speakers from both places and a vague knowledge of British
colonial history, and I'm sure someone will show me wrong....)

I recall looking at the list of influences for the auxlang and thinking,
That's very European.  Granted, I don't know a whole lot about auxlang
design (it's not a real interest of mine) but someone suggested Swahili,
and Chinese would also seem to be a large and populous Asian
representative.  Maybe a Pacific language or two.  Who knows?

Gosh, I'm remembering *why* I'm not interested in auxlangs as auxlangs:
there's too much *shtuff* to consider!  (Call me a wimp...<wry g>)

YHL, who is quite happy learning French, German, Japanese, and someday
more :-)

Reply