All 40 USA English phonemes (Was Re: Eggcorn? "warn" > "worn")

[Scot LaFaive]

>Google on "phoneme" and see the definitions.

Well shit, if the definitions on Google, it must be true.

Scot



On 2/17/09, Tom Zurinskas <truespel at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Tom Zurinskas <truespel at HOTMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: All 40 USA English phonemes (Was Re: Eggcorn? "warn" >
>              "worn")
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Google on "phoneme" and see the definitions.
>
> I dissagree that the "g" in "sung" is mostly silent as said in sentences.
>
>
>
> Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL5+
> see truespel.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:16:27 -0500
> > From: laurence.horn at YALE.EDU
> > Subject: Re: All 40 USA English phonemes (Was Re: Eggcorn? "warn">
> "worn")
> > To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> >
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> > Sender: American Dialect Society
> > Poster: Laurence Horn
> > Subject: Re: All 40 USA English phonemes (Was Re: Eggcorn? "warn">
> > "worn")
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > At 9:29 AM +0000 2/17/09, Tom Zurinskas wrote:
> >>I see your point, although a "long e" isn't usually thought of as a
> schwa.
> >>
> >>How about when different pronunciations of a
> >>word cause changes of meaning, like homonyms,
> >>e.g. pronouncing "caught" the same as "cot".
> >>Would that not be a "phonemic" change? I think
> >>so. However, the meaning has not changed, just
> >>the pronunciation; just the phonemes.
> >>
> >>So I prefer the simple original definition of phoneme as a basic speech
> sound
> >
> > That's not the (whole) definition of "phoneme",
> > original or otherwise. Contrast (or potential
> > contrast), or capability of making a difference
> > in meaning, was always part of it, or else
> > aspirated and unaspirated [p] would be different
> > phonemes. Whose definition are you citing here?
> >
> >>, not getting into "meaning". The "meaning" of words is a step beyond.
> >
> > Not in defining phonemes.
> >
> >> For example, someone could say "Just great" and mean exactly the
> opposite.
> >
> > ????
> >
> >>
> >>Between "sun" and "sung" I would say there is an
> >>extra "g" sound there in "sung"; Perhaps
> >>diminished but surely there, no?
> >
> > No.
> >
> >> And if you put it in a sentence "I've sung a song" the "g" pops out
> stongly.
> >>
> >
> > Not for most English speakers, whence the
> > shibboleth of "Lung Guy-land" to characterize one
> > regional dialect where the epenthetic /g/ does
> > pop up. Your system would encourage representing
> > "idea" as containing a final /r/ because it pops
> > up for certain non-rhotic speakers who say "the
> > idear of it". Of course, the pronunciation of
> > such speakers should be represented with that [r]
> > in such cases, but I don't think you'd want to
> > base an orthography on that practice.
> >
> > LH
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------
> >>> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:21:24 +0800
> >>> From: strangeguitars at GMAIL.COM
> >>> Subject: Re: All 40 USA English phonemes (Was Re: Eggcorn? "warn">
> "worn")
> >>> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------- Information from the
> >>>mail header -----------------------
> >>> Sender: American Dialect Society
> >>> Poster: Randy Alexander
> >>> Subject: Re: All 40 USA English phonemes (Was Re: Eggcorn? "warn">
> >>> "worn")
> >>>
>
> >>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Tom Zurinskas wrote:
> >>>> My bad. I've guess I must have reversed them.
> >>>
> >>> Good that you're admitting this.
> >>>
> >>>> What amazes me is that folks call these two
> >>>>n's different phonemes and yet they think
> >>>>schwa is one phoneme when it is in reality
> >>>>many.
> >>>
> >>> A phoneme is the smallest unit of speech sound that affects *meaning*
> >>> in a word. So /n/ and /ng/ are separate phonemes because "sun" and
> >>> "sung" have different meanings.
> >>>
> >>> The different realizations of the schwa don't affect meaning. You can
> >>> say "believe" with the first syllable realized as /bee/ or /buh/ or
> >>> /bih/, without changing the meaning of the word.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Randy Alexander
> >>> Jilin City, China
> >>> My Manchu studies blog:
> >>> http://www.bjshengr.com/manchu
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >>_________________________________________________________________
> >>Windows Live : Keep your life in sync.
> >>
> http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_022009
> >>
> >>------------------------------------------------------------
> >>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect.
> http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_022009
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

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