Print

Print


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tristan McLeay" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Lax counterpart of [&]?


> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Joe wrote:
>
> > From: "Tristan McLeay" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > I thought RP had changed [&] to [a]?
> >
> > I always thought the Aussies tended to pronounce [&] as [E].  Just goes
to
> > show, really.
>
> Okay, I could try refrasing that as, 'I've seen it written in places that
> RP /&/ is more similar to [a]', e.g.:
>
>         It is well known that the quality of the RP bat vowel has changed
>         since the 1930's. It is now more similar to "cardinal [a]" than it
>         used to be.
>                 <http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/ipa-english-uni.htm>


Generally, most foreigner's /&/es sound more [E]ey.  Possibly the RP /&/ is
a bit more similar to [a], though definitly not identical.