Re: "Aren't I?" okay implies "I aren't" okay

On Jun 28, 11:03 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
bcwordpec...@xxxxxxxxx writes:
On Jun 27, 7:09 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

The fact that if asked to read "mustn't" and told to
enunciate carefully, you will say /m@s@nt/ is good evidence that
that's what the word actually *is* for you, not merely a phonetic
reduction.

Maybe there's an attribution error there. I've never said that if
asked to read "mustn't" and told to enunciate carefully, I will say /
m@s@nt/. First place, I would never use phonemic notation when
referring to how I pronounce a word. Second place, if asked to read
"mustn't" and told to enunciate carefully, I would say ['mVs@nt], not
['m@s@nt].

I wouldn't pronounce "mustn't" ['m@s@nt], and with my understanding
of the pronunciaqtion of the schwa I would be surprised to hear
anyone else pronounce it that way.

In my own speech, in careful speech, the unstressed /@/ in this
context is very close to [I] (and I'd entertain arguments that the
word is actually /m@sInt/) and in normal speech it turns into
syllabification of the preceding /n/.

The issue here is the symbol used for the vowel in "bud", "must", and
so forth. The use of [I] where I would use [@] in unstressed position
could be another issue to discuss. For what it's worth, though, I've
noticed pronunciations in the _New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_
(_NSOED_) using [I] where I would use [@]. In fact, I see now that
they have the two as alternatives in "certain"

certain /"s<schwa>:t(<schwa>)n, -tIn/

But some people seem to think there's a close similarity between the
sounds [V] and [@],

People like the late Peter Ladefoged, editor of the _Jornal of the
International Phonetic Association_,

I don't read that from Ladefoged's discussion as you've quoted it. I
think he's discussing different ways the two are pronounced without
expressing any opinion as to a similarity between the two.

who in his phonetics textbook wrote

I have suggested two different symbols, [@] and [V], for the vowel
in "bud" ... Most Americans will have a fairly central vowel [@].
But most speakers of British English will have a vowel of this
quality in "bird," and will use the lower vowel [V] in "bud."

I find it strange that he would imply the main difference between [@]
and [V] is that [V] is lower. As I read the IPA Vowels chart, the
main difference is that the schwa is central and [V] is back.

Incidentally, _NSOED_ has a lengthened schwa [@:] in "bird" and [V] in
"bud".

Say the word "above" and note whether the two vowels are approximately
the same.

When I say "above", the two vowels are quite different, and I perceive
no reason to call them similar..

If they are, the most appropriate symbol for both is
[@]. But if you have the same vowel in both syllables of the
phrase "a bird," you should probably transcribe both of them with
[@], and use [V] for the vowel in "bud."

That fits quite well my pronunciation. Also, the British
pronunciation reported in _NSOED_.

and

I have used [@] for the vowel in "but" for most forms of American
English, restricting the [V] symbol to those forms of English that
distinguish between "bud" and "bird" without using an r-colored
vowel.

I can't follow that, because I've never understood what is intended by
"r-colored". I suppose it means more to a nonrthotic speaker than it
does to me.

This appears in striking form in Merriam-Webster's use of [@] for
both sounds, the only difference being that when [@] is unstressed
it's the schwa and when it's stressed it's the sound I would call
[V].

Do you have any words that you would consider to have [@] in stressed
position or [V] in unstressed position? A minimal pair would be best,
but I'd be interested in any indication that the distribution overlaps
for you.

When this came up here a few years ago, I found such a word and
reported it here, but I don't remember what it was. Maybe a Google
Groups seach on "schwa" and "stressed" would find it, but I've used so
many alternative IDs that I wouldn't know which one to look under.

Anyway, I will use a stressed schwa in saying, for example, "'Control'
is pronounced ['k@ntroul], not ['kVntroul]" (recording will eventually
be at http://www.exw6sxq.com/sparky/C-Ntrol_and_ CUNtrol.wav ), and in
recent actual practice "I pronounce 'mustn't' ['mVs@nt], not
['m@s@nt]". (Again, the hyphen in the file name stands for the
schwa.) (Note that I've used [ou], not the conventional [oU], for the
"o" in "control". I think it comes closer to what I actually say.)

Does anyone really pronounce [@] like an unstressed [V]?

"Like", certainly. For me, the vowel differences in "above", "abut",
"a bud", or "rub us" are on par with those in "ibid" or "Herbert".

It seems to me "rub us" would not be likely to be pronounced with no
stress on "us". I would expect it more likely to come up in a
statement like "rub US, not them". And I would pronounce
"ibid" ["IbId], probably because I have seldom had occasion to say it,
so I give it a spelling pronunciation.

As for "Herbert", it's a good example of a stressed schwa in my
speech, so the two vowels are the same except for the stress.
( ['h@rb@rt].) That may the case I was trying to think of above. But
the two vowels in "above", "abut", and "a bud" are nothing alike in my
speech.

You didn't mention my recording of [mVs@nt] and [m@sn@nt]. Have you
listened to it?
.

Loading