I wrote:
>Daniel Andreasson wrote:
>>Andreas Johansson wrote:
>> > Does length count? Swedish (at least most variants thereof)
>> > have [e:], [E:] and [E], but no [e]. [E] is one of the
>> > commonest sounds, too.
>>I've thought about this and it might be that we have [e] as
>>well. The prefix (now lexicalized) _be-_ in words like
>>_bedragen_, _besviken_ and _bemedlad_ are definitely pronounced
>>with an [e]. At least by me. It might be [@] (or even omitted)
>>in very rapid speech, but it's definitely not [E]. I say these
>>Not that it can be contrasted with anything. There aren't
>>any minimal pairs.
>In slow and careful speech I appear to have [be;'mA:gEn],

Eek? That's supposed to be [be;'drA:g@n], of course.


>[be;'me:dlad]. In rapid speech, I seem to have something between [e], [E]
>and [@] in the initial syllable. Same for the first syllable in words like
>"teleskop", "telefon". If pressed for an explanation, I'd claim there's an
>underlaying /e:/.
>It may be noted that my mother has an phonemic contrast between /e/ and
>She won't, for instance, accept that "bäst" and "best" are homophones, and
>indeed pronounces them as [bEst] and [best]. Presumeably a left-over from
>her native dialect Västgötska (her speech is pretty much "standard"
>                                                      Andreas
>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: