Print

Print


On 29/03/06, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 3/28/06, Steven Williams <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
...
> > Nor does this American, despite [1] being a phoneme in
> > my dialect!
> >
> > (the only minimal pair I can think of off-hand:
> > /Rosa's/ [r\OUz@z] vs. /roses/ [r\OUz1z])

Please don't use slashes for italics, but to surround phonemic
transcriptions. Underscores are preferred for italics.

> I distinguish those, but it's more like [Vz] vs [Iz].  Substituting
> [@z] (or even [z=]) still sounds like "roses" to me.

Both the same for me: [@z]

> > I always pronounce jery as [y] or [I].
>
> I've been told that I have a good accent in Russian, incluing my [1].
> Which I used to think was a diphthong starting with something like
> [@], but apparently that was all in my head and just part of how I
> thought about the articulation...

What is the sound? It surely can't *actually* be [i\], can it? When I
hear it, it sounds like [wi] after labio-velars and an exaggerated
version of my own /i:/ in most other cases (my /i:/ is definitely
diphthongal, something along the lines of [Ii]); I'd assume in this
case I'm hearing [i\i] or something along those lines.

..
> Carsten> and [w] and [v].
>
> That is indeed an infamous feature of German (and Slavic) accents.
> And I totally get the substitution of [v] for [w] when the L1 has no
> [w]. But the reverse phenomenon (use of [w] for |v|) confuses me.
> Does that really happen outside of Hollywood accents?  If so, why?
> Hypercorrection?

Dunno about Germans (the ones I've heard either get it right or
(sometimes) use [v] for /w/), but a Sinhalese-speaker I know says [w]
for /v/ quite frequently, as well as the reverse.

--
Tristan