daniel prohaska wrote:
> From: David J. Peterson
[snip]
> the actual study, or that, if it has been done, no one has read it,
> or wants to cite it, and so the [@]/[V] myth persists.
> -David"
> 
> 
> David,
> I respect your opinion, but I've heard [V] from many speakers in southern
> England. I, personally haven't got it in my phoneme inventory, because I
> usually have [U] for /V/, 

   :)

Yep - [U] or [V] is quite distinct from [@] for most of us Brits. We've 
had this same debate about [V] ~ [@] on Conlang more than once before. 
It is evident that in many (all?) parts of the US the two phonemes have 
fallen together, but it ain't so in extra-US English.

Down in our non-rhotic neck of the woods, the sound in 'bird' is felt to 
be he stressed form of schwa   ;)

But, as I say, this has been discussed before. IIRC there was a thread 
called "Is your curry furry?" - here 'curry' /kVri/ does _not_ rhyme 
with 'furry' /f@ri/       ;)

> To cut a long story short - I'm afraid that neither /V/ nor [V] are a myth,

Certainly not - I hear them and use them every day.
=================================

Larry Sulky wrote:
[snip]
 > I agree. My last name has stressed [@].

Not the way I say it, it doesn't. It's [sVlki] - and I guess Daniel says 
[sUlkI]. Both [V] and [U] are quite different from [@].


-- 
Ray
==================================
[log in to unmask]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760