ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (07/23/85)
>I have long been a bit annoyed at the insistence of linguists (phonologists?) >that vowels which are "reduced" are all pronounced the same. I don't think >this is actually true, at least not all the time. In the example above, >the second "o" in "photographic" may be pronounced as a schwa, a long o, >or anywhere in between. So why not spell it as a long o, recognizing that >speakers will reduce it to varying extents, including all the way to a schwa? > >Let me suggest an experiment. Write down the word "photographic", and ask >a number of people how it is pronounced. I suspect many if not most will >clearly pronounce the second o as a long o. Granted that those same people >reduce it to a schwa in ordinary conversation. But is pronunciation in >ordinary conversation the only appropriate standard? >-- Frank Adams But is this not a result of spending all those years learning to spell correctly? Bury that same word in the middle of a large paragraph, and then try the experiment. Frankly, trying to determine those damned reduced vowels, particularly in cases like: existence vs existance? concurrent vs concurrant? ..is the hardest part about our spelling. Would we want to preserve them if we had a spelling reform? Our worst spellings, like {rough, knee, write} are at least easy to remember due to their insanity. I agree that most people pronounce those vowels clearly when the word is in isolation, or when the speaker is attempting to be very clear or very formal, but I believe this behavior is not particularly natural, given our Teutonic language habits. German, Dutch, etc, behave similarly. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Incidentally, one thing that DOES bother me is the seemingly artificial distinction many linguists make between \0\ (shwa) and \1\ (barred i) as in: photographic \fowt0graef1k\ existence \1gzist1ns\ As far as I can tell, the precise sound of the unaccented vowel is fully determined by its surrounding consonants. The only contrasting pairs I can find are in final unaccented syllables: Sophie \sowf1\ sofa \sowf0\ ..in which case, I'd consider \1\ to be shorthand for \0y\. This tactic also handles words like: extraneous \0kstreyn0y0s\ (shorthand = \0kstren10s\) strenuous \streny0w0s\ fellow \fel0w\ In each case, all one needs to know is the consonantal context and where the unaccented vowel is located. Admittedly, what I've written \0\ in my speech sometimes approaches \i\, sometimes \o\, etc, but, to be consistent, I'd need at least 7 reduced vowel symbols, and it hardly makes sense to favor \i\. Nearly every English speaker I've ever heard behaves this way, although my ears could be broken. I know this is a religious issue, but why make what such a pointless distinction in what is a phonemic, not phonetic, transcription? -michael