Re: Schwas in America
| From: | David Peterson <thatbluecat@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, June 8, 2004, 3:25 |
|---|
Sally wrote:
<<It's a word the derivation of which I wonder about. Whence the final "p"?
An exaggerated glottal stop?>>
No, no. The word "nope" was created based on the analogy to "yep", which
is,
of course, the word "yes", minus the answer particle /-s/, and with the
second
order answer particle /-p/ applied. Of course, answer particles can *only*
be
applied to affirmative replies, but some indulge in the deviancy of applying
the
second order answer particle to "no". Why the first order answer particle
never
caught on is beyond me.
;)
Seriously, though, I've noticed something about English schwa.
Specifically, some-
times it comes out sounding like a schwa, [@], and sometimes more like a [I].
It
seems like these are close to becoming either lexicalized, or allophones in a
bizarre
vowel harmony system. Anyone who works future English thought about this?
To make it explicit, here are some examples:
(1) Is "explicit" [EksplIsIt] or [EksplIs@t]?
(2) Is "America" [VmErIk@] or [VmEr@k@]?
(3) Is "impossible" [ImpAsIbl=] or [ImpAs@bl=]?
Et cetera. (Oh, and only the @/I distinction is the one I'm interested
in--not in any
other aspect of the transcription.)
-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
-Jim Morrison
http://dedalvs.free.fr/
Replies