Evidence for Schwa + r in phonology

[Donald M. Lance]

Not only the Brooklyn pronunciation, but also "r-coloring" of the vowel sound that remains
after "loss" of [r].  Do a vowel chart of the possible English vowels before spelled -r
and see what you happens.  Only a few distinctions are possible in the phonology/phonetics
of both "/r/-keepers" and "/r/-losers." Whether "phonemes" or "morae," the phonetic forms
in questions have two underlying phonological elements.  Dennis, if /r/ were to lose its
phonemicity the way /x/ did in eModE in //kaxt//--> 'caught', I think your analysis would
be accurate for what happens in the phonology of successive generations of a
multigenerational community of speakers with "total loss" of /r/.  Not a simple matter, by
any means.  (with apologies to lurkers with limited backgrounds in the history of the
language)
DMLance

"Dennis R. Preston" wrote:

> Rudy,
>
> Well, historically that may be so. But isn't that exactly one of the routes
> to long vowels and diphthongs? In which case I could go with bi-moraicity
> but maybe not bi-phonemicity.
>
> dInIs
>
> >The strongest evidence for the di-phonemicity of /@r/ comes from
> >"Brooklyn" and central Southern /@y/ in words like <work>, where the /r/
> >segment is palatalized. It is inexplicable otherwise.
> >
> >        Rudy