ah/ awe

[Tom Zurinskas]

>From: Alice Faber <faber at HASKINS.YALE.EDU>

>But it *is* a merger, by the definition of a merger. One language state
>with two contrasting sounds develops into a state in which there is only
>one.
OK.  Special meaning.  The alligator ate the dog.  They had a merger:)
Seems to me a better term than merger here would be apropriate if its really
a takeover not a merger.

> > Seems to me "r" dropping and "awe" replaced by "ah" are both easier to
>say.
>
>Maybe, maybe not.
You don't know?

>It's common for folks who haven't studied sound change
>extensively to appeal to "ease of articulation" as an account both for
>particular sound changes and for sound change in general. The problem is
>that it's impossible to predict in advance which sound combinations are
>so difficult as to be susceptible of change.
I intuitively dissagree.  For those learning English they'll have trouble
with certain phonemes.

>The canonical argument is that reform of English spelling would make it
>harder for speakers who learned a reformed spelling to read classics of
>the past. "How would they read Shakespeare?"
Canons or waterpistols.  What's the problem?  Suppose it were spelled
phonetically?  It could still be decoded.  The language is beautiful but the
references are dated.

>I think the collected experience of the linguists in this group of
>teaching beginning students phonetic transcription and dialectology
>counts for something more than your untutored intuitions.
Like you said.  Maybe maybe not.  That answer from an untutored person is
just as good as from a tutored person.

>Furthermore,
>studies of second language and second dialect acquisition show quite
>clearly that learners, especially those beyond their primary school
>years, have substantially difficulty learning to make linguistic use of
>sounds not used in their native speech variety. Sure, they can learn to
>mimic the sound AWE, but they'll likely have difficulty producing it in
>running speech.
Likely?   I doubt it.  We're talking about native USA English speakers
speaking English.  The data show that 60% speak the "awe" sound.  Those that
don't should hear it often on TV/radio.  They can do it.  They choose not to
because it's not they're local way.

>And, if they don't distinguish the COT and CAUGHT
>classes of words in their own speech, even if they can learn to
>pronounce the two sounds differently, they'll inevitably make many
>errors in correctly assigning words to the COT and CAUGHT classes.
No kidding. Takes practice.  So?

Tom Z

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