r --> z

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

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