r --> z

RonButters at AOL.COM RonButters at AOL.COM
Mon Jul 10 17:36:22 UTC 2006

In a message dated 7/10/06 11:08:13 AM, m.l.murphy at SUSSEX.AC.UK writes:

> Is it common for /r/ to change to [z]?

Isn't this why we have "was" vs. "were" and "lost" vs. "forlorn"? Well, true,
in these cases z > r, but at least in principle the two are close enough that
the alternation is not uinlikely.

The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

More information about the Ads-l mailing list