Roger Mills wrote: >John Cowan wrote: > > > >>Roger Mills scripsit: >> >> >> >>>Which is exactly what written English does. I've suggested in that past >>>that the _underlying_ phonology of _all_ Engl. dialects (the >>> >>> >standard-ish > > >>>one, at any rate) does have /r/ in all the positions where it is >>> >>> >written. > > >>I think you are right, but there are difficulties. What about ARSE, for >>example? The universal North American pronunciation is [&:s]; does this >> >> >have > > >>underlying /r/ or not? Surely you don't want to claim that BASS, the >> >> >fish, > > >>is underlyingly /bars/ or /b&rs/ (OE "baers"). >> >> > >In terms of the written lang. we'd just have to acknowledge that a few words >vary, even if their pronunciation obeys some other regular rule-- [&s] vs. >[A:s] (or whatever) is in the same class as [gr&s]-[grA:s] or [b&T]-[bAT] >etc. Is RP "bass (fish)" [bAs]? I seem to recall that not all US [&] are >[A] in RP, some are still [&] > > > Most are still [&]. A few, mostly before fricatives(I'm not sure if there is an exact rule), are [A:]. That's why I suggest that a seperate representation for [A:] in RP where it is [&] in USAian. Like I said, |aa| would probably make the most sense. 'arse', on the other hand, is definitely an 'r' word in Rightpondian - rhotic British dialects have [A:rs].