Op 19-12-2021 om 00:10 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
> On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 4:30:32 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
>> Op 18-12-2021 om 20:24 schreef DKleinecke:
>>> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:26:21 PM UTC-8, wugi wrote:
>>>> Op 17-12-2021 om 21:25 schreef DKleinecke:
>>>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>>>>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>>>>>>>> I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
>>>>>>>>> There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
>>>>>>>>> understand one another.
>>>>>>>> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
>>>>>>>>> Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
>>>> Er...
>>>>>>>>> than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
>>>>>>>> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
>>>>>>>> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
>>>>>>> haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
>>>>>>> using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
>>>>>>> the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>> some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
>>>>>>>>> course /kewt/.
>>>>>>>> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
>>>>>>>> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/
>>>>>> Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
>>>>>> disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
>>>>>> because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
>>>>>> then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
>>>>>> there, the [u].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just doesn't make sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not /tewn/ in my speech (Northern California). It's /tuwn/ with
>>>>> what people often call a long 'u'. In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
>>>>> This not Welsh. I think that I speak /uw/ before a voiced consonant
>>>>> in free variation between a diphthong and a long vowel .
>>>>>
>>>>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
>>>> ... but, see before, you had also /Ewr@p/ and /few/ which I can only
>>>> read, if not as some Romance, as "Yurëp" and "fyu:", ie, with a vowel-w-
>>>> and a consonant-e-.
>>>
>>> Writing /yu/ for the diphthong that I write /ew/ is just a different
>>> (and equivalent) phonemic system. I like mine better because it
>>> gives a more symmetric overall scheme.
>>
>> Symmetric?? Incorporating /few/ and /Hewgow/ and then /tuwn/ an /tawn/
>> in the same system?
>
> As Ruud keeps complaining, AmE doesn't have [j] in "tune."

Yes but that's not the case and not the point here :)

>> With a vowelish w in the former ("In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
>> This not Welsh."), a glider in the latter?
>> Or perhaps you mean we shouldn't read /ew/ and /uw/ as pairs of
>> placeholders for sounds, but as one diphthong sound? But then, where is
>> the symmetry between "spelling" diphthongs /xw/ and /yw/ where one is
>> y+vowel /ew/ ~ /ju(:)/, and the other vowel+w /aw/?
>>> I don't see any 'w' in your example or an 'e' consonant. So I ask again
>>>>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
>>>
>>> I think making the 'u' in "fyu" long is not the way it is usually
>>> pronounced.
>> Anyway how would you distinguish between new, few, you... with a short
>> and then with a long u?
>> /few/ and /feww/? /few/ and /fjuw/ or /fyuw/? ...
>
> Why would they have "with a short and then with a long u"?
>
> short/long is the British phoneticians' way of describing what AmE
> calls diphthongs.

I don't support either camp, but how obscure can a statement be.

UKE short/long ~ AmE diphthong?
or UKE long ~ AmE diphthong??
If /few/ is not considered having a long /u:/ then it has no diphthong
either???
/jutiliti/ has no diphthong but /ju:z/ has????
Father has a long vowel, ergo a diphthong?!
I'm clearly missing a pointe here.

--
guido wugi

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 2:54:06 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
> Op 19-12-2021 om 00:10 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 4:30:32 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
> >> Op 18-12-2021 om 20:24 schreef DKleinecke:
> >>> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:26:21 PM UTC-8, wugi wrote:
> >>>> Op 17-12-2021 om 21:25 schreef DKleinecke:
> >>>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>>>>> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >>>>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >>>>>>>>> I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
> >>>>>>>>> There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
> >>>>>>>>> understand one another.
> >>>>>>>> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
> >>>>>>>>> Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
> >>>> Er...
> >>>>>>>>> than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
> >>>>>>>> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
> >>>>>>>> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
> >>>>>>> haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
> >>>>>>> using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
> >>>>>>> the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For
> >>>>>>>>> some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
> >>>>>>>>> course /kewt/.
> >>>>>>>> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
> >>>>>>>> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/
> >>>>>> Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
> >>>>>> disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
> >>>>>> because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
> >>>>>> then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
> >>>>>> there, the [u].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I just doesn't make sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's not /tewn/ in my speech (Northern California). It's /tuwn/ with
> >>>>> what people often call a long 'u'. In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
> >>>>> This not Welsh. I think that I speak /uw/ before a voiced consonant
> >>>>> in free variation between a diphthong and a long vowel .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
> >>>> ... but, see before, you had also /Ewr@p/ and /few/ which I can only
> >>>> read, if not as some Romance, as "Yurëp" and "fyu:", ie, with a vowel-w-
> >>>> and a consonant-e-.
> >>>
> >>> Writing /yu/ for the diphthong that I write /ew/ is just a different
> >>> (and equivalent) phonemic system. I like mine better because it
> >>> gives a more symmetric overall scheme.
> >>
> >> Symmetric?? Incorporating /few/ and /Hewgow/ and then /tuwn/ an /tawn/
> >> in the same system?
> >
> > As Ruud keeps complaining, AmE doesn't have [j] in "tune."
> Yes but that's not the case and not the point here :)
> >> With a vowelish w in the former ("In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
> >> This not Welsh."), a glider in the latter?
> >> Or perhaps you mean we shouldn't read /ew/ and /uw/ as pairs of
> >> placeholders for sounds, but as one diphthong sound? But then, where is
> >> the symmetry between "spelling" diphthongs /xw/ and /yw/ where one is
> >> y+vowel /ew/ ~ /ju(:)/, and the other vowel+w /aw/?
> >>> I don't see any 'w' in your example or an 'e' consonant. So I ask again
> >>>>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
> >>>
> >>> I think making the 'u' in "fyu" long is not the way it is usually
> >>> pronounced.
> >> Anyway how would you distinguish between new, few, you... with a short
> >> and then with a long u?
> >> /few/ and /feww/? /few/ and /fjuw/ or /fyuw/? ...
> >
> > Why would they have "with a short and then with a long u"?
> >
> > short/long is the British phoneticians' way of describing what AmE
> > calls diphthongs.
> I don't support either camp, but how obscure can a statement be.
>
> UKE short/long ~ AmE diphthong?
> or UKE long ~ AmE diphthong??
> If /few/ is not considered having a long /u:/ then it has no diphthong
> either???
> /jutiliti/ has no diphthong but /ju:z/ has????
> Father has a long vowel, ergo a diphthong?!
> I'm clearly missing a pointe here.
>
> --
> guido wugi

big bad linguist will wave the linguist magic wand and find a "diphthong" in "father"
these lying sacks of shit without an ounce of credibility should be run out of town on a rail.

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 2:54:06 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
> Op 19-12-2021 om 00:10 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 4:30:32 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
> >> Op 18-12-2021 om 20:24 schreef DKleinecke:
> >>> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:26:21 PM UTC-8, wugi wrote:
> >>>> Op 17-12-2021 om 21:25 schreef DKleinecke:
> >>>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>>>>> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >>>>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >>>>>>>>> I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
> >>>>>>>>> There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
> >>>>>>>>> understand one another.
> >>>>>>>> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
> >>>>>>>>> Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
> >>>> Er...
> >>>>>>>>> than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
> >>>>>>>> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
> >>>>>>>> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
> >>>>>>> haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
> >>>>>>> using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
> >>>>>>> the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For
> >>>>>>>>> some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
> >>>>>>>>> course /kewt/.
> >>>>>>>> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
> >>>>>>>> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/
> >>>>>> Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
> >>>>>> disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
> >>>>>> because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
> >>>>>> then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
> >>>>>> there, the [u].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I just doesn't make sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's not /tewn/ in my speech (Northern California). It's /tuwn/ with
> >>>>> what people often call a long 'u'. In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
> >>>>> This not Welsh. I think that I speak /uw/ before a voiced consonant
> >>>>> in free variation between a diphthong and a long vowel .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
> >>>> ... but, see before, you had also /Ewr@p/ and /few/ which I can only
> >>>> read, if not as some Romance, as "Yurëp" and "fyu:", ie, with a vowel-w-
> >>>> and a consonant-e-.
> >>>
> >>> Writing /yu/ for the diphthong that I write /ew/ is just a different
> >>> (and equivalent) phonemic system. I like mine better because it
> >>> gives a more symmetric overall scheme.
> >>
> >> Symmetric?? Incorporating /few/ and /Hewgow/ and then /tuwn/ an /tawn/
> >> in the same system?
> >
> > As Ruud keeps complaining, AmE doesn't have [j] in "tune."
> Yes but that's not the case and not the point here :)
> >> With a vowelish w in the former ("In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
> >> This not Welsh."), a glider in the latter?
> >> Or perhaps you mean we shouldn't read /ew/ and /uw/ as pairs of
> >> placeholders for sounds, but as one diphthong sound? But then, where is
> >> the symmetry between "spelling" diphthongs /xw/ and /yw/ where one is
> >> y+vowel /ew/ ~ /ju(:)/, and the other vowel+w /aw/?
> >>> I don't see any 'w' in your example or an 'e' consonant. So I ask again
> >>>>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
> >>>
> >>> I think making the 'u' in "fyu" long is not the way it is usually
> >>> pronounced.
> >> Anyway how would you distinguish between new, few, you... with a short
> >> and then with a long u?
> >> /few/ and /feww/? /few/ and /fjuw/ or /fyuw/? ...
> >
> > Why would they have "with a short and then with a long u"?
> >
> > short/long is the British phoneticians' way of describing what AmE
> > calls diphthongs.
> I don't support either camp, but how obscure can a statement be.
>
> UKE short/long ~ AmE diphthong?
> or UKE long ~ AmE diphthong??
> If /few/ is not considered having a long /u:/ then it has no diphthong
> either???
> /jutiliti/ has no diphthong but /ju:z/ has????
> Father has a long vowel, ergo a diphthong?!
> I'm clearly missing a pointe here.

If you're having a problem with David's phonemic analysis,
ask _him_. I was simply explaining that both /tewn/ and /tuwn/
are ways to phonemicize "tune" --and in this case they seem to
reflect different pronunciations.

The American phonemic system (Bloch/Trager/Smith) doesn't
have a phoneme for what schoolteachers call "long u," i.e. the u
that "says its name." It's just the glide /y/ followed by the diphthong
/uw/.

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 3:46:28 PM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 2:54:06 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
> > Op 19-12-2021 om 00:10 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
> > > On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 4:30:32 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
> > >> Op 18-12-2021 om 20:24 schreef DKleinecke:
> > >>> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:26:21 PM UTC-8, wugi wrote:
> > >>>> Op 17-12-2021 om 21:25 schreef DKleinecke:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > >>>>>> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> > >>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> > >>>>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> > >>>>>>>>> I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
> > >>>>>>>>> There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
> > >>>>>>>>> understand one another.
> > >>>>>>>> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
> > >>>>>>>>> Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
> > >>>> Er...
> > >>>>>>>>> than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
> > >>>>>>>> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
> > >>>>>>>> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
> > >>>>>>> haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
> > >>>>>>> using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
> > >>>>>>> the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> For
> > >>>>>>>>> some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
> > >>>>>>>>> course /kewt/.
> > >>>>>>>> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
> > >>>>>>>> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/
> > >>>>>> Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
> > >>>>>> disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
> > >>>>>> because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
> > >>>>>> then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
> > >>>>>> there, the [u].
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I just doesn't make sense.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It's not /tewn/ in my speech (Northern California). It's /tuwn/ with
> > >>>>> what people often call a long 'u'. In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
> > >>>>> This not Welsh. I think that I speak /uw/ before a voiced consonant
> > >>>>> in free variation between a diphthong and a long vowel .
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
> > >>>> ... but, see before, you had also /Ewr@p/ and /few/ which I can only
> > >>>> read, if not as some Romance, as "Yurëp" and "fyu:", ie, with a vowel-w-
> > >>>> and a consonant-e-.
> > >>>
> > >>> Writing /yu/ for the diphthong that I write /ew/ is just a different
> > >>> (and equivalent) phonemic system. I like mine better because it
> > >>> gives a more symmetric overall scheme.
> > >>
> > >> Symmetric?? Incorporating /few/ and /Hewgow/ and then /tuwn/ an /tawn/
> > >> in the same system?
> > >
> > > As Ruud keeps complaining, AmE doesn't have [j] in "tune."
> > Yes but that's not the case and not the point here :)
> > >> With a vowelish w in the former ("In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
> > >> This not Welsh."), a glider in the latter?
> > >> Or perhaps you mean we shouldn't read /ew/ and /uw/ as pairs of
> > >> placeholders for sounds, but as one diphthong sound? But then, where is
> > >> the symmetry between "spelling" diphthongs /xw/ and /yw/ where one is
> > >> y+vowel /ew/ ~ /ju(:)/, and the other vowel+w /aw/?
> > >>> I don't see any 'w' in your example or an 'e' consonant. So I ask again
> > >>>>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
> > >>>
> > >>> I think making the 'u' in "fyu" long is not the way it is usually
> > >>> pronounced.
> > >> Anyway how would you distinguish between new, few, you... with a short
> > >> and then with a long u?
> > >> /few/ and /feww/? /few/ and /fjuw/ or /fyuw/? ...
> > >
> > > Why would they have "with a short and then with a long u"?
> > >
> > > short/long is the British phoneticians' way of describing what AmE
> > > calls diphthongs.
> > I don't support either camp, but how obscure can a statement be.
> >
> > UKE short/long ~ AmE diphthong?
> > or UKE long ~ AmE diphthong??
> > If /few/ is not considered having a long /u:/ then it has no diphthong
> > either???
> > /jutiliti/ has no diphthong but /ju:z/ has????
> > Father has a long vowel, ergo a diphthong?!
> > I'm clearly missing a pointe here.
> If you're having a problem with David's phonemic analysis,
> ask _him_. I was simply explaining that both /tewn/ and /tuwn/
> are ways to phonemicize "tune" --and in this case they seem to
> reflect different pronunciations.
>
> The American phonemic system (Bloch/Trager/Smith) doesn't
> have a phoneme for what schoolteachers call "long u," i.e. the u
> that "says its name." It's just the glide /y/ followed by the diphthong
> /uw/.

Ie they don't pronounce it like the plain letter of the alphabet but they load a y followed by a "diphthong" in their mental apparatus !!

fuck these impudent fuckers.

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 1:30:56 PM UTC-8, S K wrote:
> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 3:46:28 PM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 2:54:06 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
> > > Op 19-12-2021 om 00:10 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
> > > > On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 4:30:32 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
> > > >> Op 18-12-2021 om 20:24 schreef DKleinecke:
> > > >>> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:26:21 PM UTC-8, wugi wrote:
> > > >>>> Op 17-12-2021 om 21:25 schreef DKleinecke:
> > > >>>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> > > >>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> > > >>>>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> > > >>>>>>>>> I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
> > > >>>>>>>>> There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
> > > >>>>>>>>> understand one another.
> > > >>>>>>>> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
> > > >>>> Er...
> > > >>>>>>>>> than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
> > > >>>>>>>> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
> > > >>>>>>>> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
> > > >>>>>>> haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
> > > >>>>>>> using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
> > > >>>>>>> the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> For
> > > >>>>>>>>> some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
> > > >>>>>>>>> course /kewt/.
> > > >>>>>>>> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
> > > >>>>>>>> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/
> > > >>>>>> Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
> > > >>>>>> disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
> > > >>>>>> because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
> > > >>>>>> then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
> > > >>>>>> there, the [u].
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I just doesn't make sense.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> It's not /tewn/ in my speech (Northern California). It's /tuwn/ with
> > > >>>>> what people often call a long 'u'. In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
> > > >>>>> This not Welsh. I think that I speak /uw/ before a voiced consonant
> > > >>>>> in free variation between a diphthong and a long vowel .
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
> > > >>>> ... but, see before, you had also /Ewr@p/ and /few/ which I can only
> > > >>>> read, if not as some Romance, as "Yurëp" and "fyu:", ie, with a vowel-w-
> > > >>>> and a consonant-e-.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Writing /yu/ for the diphthong that I write /ew/ is just a different
> > > >>> (and equivalent) phonemic system. I like mine better because it
> > > >>> gives a more symmetric overall scheme.
> > > >>
> > > >> Symmetric?? Incorporating /few/ and /Hewgow/ and then /tuwn/ an /tawn/
> > > >> in the same system?
> > > >
> > > > As Ruud keeps complaining, AmE doesn't have [j] in "tune."
> > > Yes but that's not the case and not the point here :)
> > > >> With a vowelish w in the former ("In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
> > > >> This not Welsh."), a glider in the latter?
> > > >> Or perhaps you mean we shouldn't read /ew/ and /uw/ as pairs of
> > > >> placeholders for sounds, but as one diphthong sound? But then, where is
> > > >> the symmetry between "spelling" diphthongs /xw/ and /yw/ where one is
> > > >> y+vowel /ew/ ~ /ju(:)/, and the other vowel+w /aw/?
> > > >>> I don't see any 'w' in your example or an 'e' consonant. So I ask again
> > > >>>>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think making the 'u' in "fyu" long is not the way it is usually
> > > >>> pronounced.
> > > >> Anyway how would you distinguish between new, few, you... with a short
> > > >> and then with a long u?
> > > >> /few/ and /feww/? /few/ and /fjuw/ or /fyuw/? ...
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have "with a short and then with a long u"?
> > > >
> > > > short/long is the British phoneticians' way of describing what AmE
> > > > calls diphthongs.
> > > I don't support either camp, but how obscure can a statement be.
> > >
> > > UKE short/long ~ AmE diphthong?
> > > or UKE long ~ AmE diphthong??
> > > If /few/ is not considered having a long /u:/ then it has no diphthong
> > > either???
> > > /jutiliti/ has no diphthong but /ju:z/ has????
> > > Father has a long vowel, ergo a diphthong?!
> > > I'm clearly missing a pointe here.
> > If you're having a problem with David's phonemic analysis,
> > ask _him_. I was simply explaining that both /tewn/ and /tuwn/
> > are ways to phonemicize "tune" --and in this case they seem to
> > reflect different pronunciations.
> >
> > The American phonemic system (Bloch/Trager/Smith) doesn't
> > have a phoneme for what schoolteachers call "long u," i.e. the u
> > that "says its name." It's just the glide /y/ followed by the diphthong
> > /uw/.
> Ie they don't pronounce it like the plain letter of the alphabet but they load a y followed by a "diphthong" in their mental apparatus !!
>
> fuck these impudent fuckers.

Phonemes are what an alphabet should be. That there is no one natural
system of phonemes shows that they probably have no natural existence
in terms of brain function. But until we have a better way of understanding
a brain they are the best we have. Lately it has been fashionable to deny
phonemes make sense but to substitute nothing in their place. Anybody
who writes English should know that English spelling is very difficult to
use precisely and, at least for English, phonemes are needed.

One question of interest here is the two consonants of, say, "Hang". The
utterances of "h" can never be mistaken for utterances of "ng" (which I
write /q/) or vice versa so we might say they are two allophones of the
same phoneme so "hang" is /hah/ or /qaq/. This is too extreme even for
me and I keep /h/ and /q/ separate - /haq/. But it would be legal
phonology.

Incidentally I have a phoneme a majority of English speakers lack - /wh/.
A voiceless /w/. I write "where" as /wher/ and "wear" is /wer/. Yes, I am
strongly rhotic. People who merge /wh/ and /w/ are free to ignore the
diacritic /h/.

Sun, 19 Dec 2021 20:53:58 +0100: wugi <wugi@scrlt.com> scribeva:
>I don't support either camp, but how obscure can a statement be.
>
>UKE short/long ~ AmE diphthong?
>or UKE long ~ AmE diphthong??
>If /few/ is not considered having a long /u:/ then it has no diphthong
>either???
>/jutiliti/ has no diphthong but /ju:z/ has????
>Father has a long vowel, ergo a diphthong?!

For forced symmetry, they posit an /h/ there, which of course isn't an
[h], because English phonotactics don't allow that. /fahðer/. Only
short vowels.

>I'm clearly missing a pointe here.

Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:30:27 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
<dkleinecke@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> Ie they don't pronounce it like the plain letter of the alphabet but they load a y followed by a "diphthong" in their mental apparatus !!
>>
>> fuck these impudent fuckers.
>
>Phonemes are what an alphabet should be.

No. Written language and spoken language are two different things.

>That there is no one natural
>system of phonemes shows that they probably have no natural existence
>in terms of brain function.

Within one language, the situation is close to that. It's different
for every language. And IPA tries to cover all of them, I learnt from
PTD.

>But until we have a better way of understanding
>a brain they are the best we have.

It's all just a matter of habits and endless training. Children at 2
to 4 talk from the moment they wake up to when they fall asleep.
Because they know intuitively that intensive practice is the only way.

>Lately it has been fashionable to deny
>phonemes make sense but to substitute nothing in their place. Anybody
>who writes English should know that English spelling is very difficult to
>use precisely and, at least for English, phonemes are needed.

I never really found it particularly difficult. I learnt the language
along with its spelling, and they seem fit. Every word had a sound and
a picture. I don't think of phonemes when I type, I just type the
words.

>One question of interest here is the two consonants of, say, "Hang". The
>utterances of "h" can never be mistaken for utterances of "ng" (which I
>write /q/) or vice versa so we might say they are two allophones of the
>same phoneme so "hang" is /hah/ or /qaq/. This is too extreme even for
>me and I keep /h/ and /q/ separate - /haq/. But it would be legal
>phonology.

No. Old story, but debunked a thousand times. Phonotactics. The
history of related languages. ALL Germanic languages have this rule.
And final ng came about through nk. The n assimilated to the k, which
often got lost.

>Incidentally I have a phoneme a majority of English speakers lack - /wh/.
>A voiceless /w/.

No, it's /hw/. The Danes still write that: <hvid> is white in their
language, although the no longer pronounce the [h]. /hw/ comes from
/xw/ in Proto-Germanic, which was /kw/ or /khw/ in PIE.

>I write "where" as /wher/ and "wear" is /wer/. Yes, I am
>strongly rhotic. People who merge /wh/ and /w/ are free to ignore the
>diacritic /h/.

It's not a diacritic, but a phoneme that has become mute for many, but
not all.

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 10:07:02 PM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:30:27 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >> Ie they don't pronounce it like the plain letter of the alphabet but they load a y followed by a "diphthong" in their mental apparatus !!
> >>
> >> fuck these impudent fuckers.
> >
> >Phonemes are what an alphabet should be.
> No. Written language and spoken language are two different things.
> >That there is no one natural
> >system of phonemes shows that they probably have no natural existence
> >in terms of brain function.
> Within one language, the situation is close to that. It's different
> for every language. And IPA tries to cover all of them, I learnt from
> PTD.
> >But until we have a better way of understanding
> >a brain they are the best we have.
> It's all just a matter of habits and endless training. Children at 2
> to 4 talk from the moment they wake up to when they fall asleep.
> Because they know intuitively that intensive practice is the only way.
> >Lately it has been fashionable to deny
> >phonemes make sense but to substitute nothing in their place. Anybody
> >who writes English should know that English spelling is very difficult to
> >use precisely and, at least for English, phonemes are needed.
> I never really found it particularly difficult. I learnt the language
> along with its spelling, and they seem fit. Every word had a sound and
> a picture. I don't think of phonemes when I type, I just type the
> words.
> >One question of interest here is the two consonants of, say, "Hang". The
> >utterances of "h" can never be mistaken for utterances of "ng" (which I
> >write /q/) or vice versa so we might say they are two allophones of the
> >same phoneme so "hang" is /hah/ or /qaq/. This is too extreme even for
> >me and I keep /h/ and /q/ separate - /haq/. But it would be legal
> >phonology.
> No. Old story, but debunked a thousand times. Phonotactics. The
> history of related languages. ALL Germanic languages have this rule.
> And final ng came about through nk. The n assimilated to the k, which
> often got lost.
> >Incidentally I have a phoneme a majority of English speakers lack - /wh/.
> >A voiceless /w/.
> No, it's /hw/. The Danes still write that: <hvid> is white in their
> language, although the no longer pronounce the [h]. /hw/ comes from
> /xw/ in Proto-Germanic, which was /kw/ or /khw/ in PIE.

*Kwel(o) dwell domeshield mongolu (njambua)ngdualua -> khwel
gulu@Chn: dome, circle
culture/colony/eco- inhabit colere@Ltn

Without Paleo-etymology, linguists can only chase their tales.

> >I write "where" as /wher/ and "wear" is /wer/. Yes, I am
> >strongly rhotic. People who merge /wh/ and /w/ are free to ignore the
> >diacritic /h/.
> It's not a diacritic, but a phoneme that has become mute for many, but
> not all.

>> Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:30:27 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>> >Incidentally I have a phoneme a majority of English speakers lack - /wh/.
>> >A voiceless /w/.

>On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 10:07:02 PM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> No, it's /hw/. The Danes still write that: <hvid> is white in their
>> language, although the no longer pronounce the [h]. /hw/ comes from
>> /xw/ in Proto-Germanic, which was /kw/ or /khw/ in PIE.

Sun, 19 Dec 2021 22:09:33 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
<daud.deden@gmail.com> scribeva:
>*Kwel(o) dwell domeshield mongolu (njambua)ngdualua -> khwel
>gulu@Chn: dome, circle
>culture/colony/eco- inhabit colere@Ltn
>
>Without Paleo-etymology, linguists can only chase their tales.

There's no need to invent a nonsense etymology for this, because it is
as clear as one in IED etymology can be:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/which
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/what#Etymology
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/hwar
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/hwaz
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/k%CA%B7os
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/k%CA%B7%C3%ADs
etc. etc.

Compare:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/were#Etymology_1
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ware#Etymology_1
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/way#Etymology_1
etc. etc.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 2:16:08 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:30:27 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >> >Incidentally I have a phoneme a majority of English speakers lack - /wh/.
> >> >A voiceless /w/.
> >On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 10:07:02 PM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> No, it's /hw/. The Danes still write that: <hvid> is white in their
> >> language, although the no longer pronounce the [h]. /hw/ comes from
> >> /xw/ in Proto-Germanic, which was /kw/ or /khw/ in PIE.
> Sun, 19 Dec 2021 22:09:33 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >*Kwel(o) dwell domeshield mongolu (njambua)ngdualua -> khwel
> >gulu@Chn: dome, circle
> >culture/colony/eco- inhabit colere@Ltn
> >
> >Without Paleo-etymology, linguists can only chase their tales.
> There's no need to invent a nonsense etymology for this, because it is
> as clear as one in IED etymology can be:
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/which
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/what#Etymology
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/hwar
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/hwaz
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/k%CA%B7os
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/k%CA%B7%C3%ADs
> etc. etc.
>
> Compare:
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/were#Etymology_1
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ware#Etymology_1
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/way#Etymology_1
> etc. etc.
> --
> Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
- Bobot Edit
Etymology Edit
From Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *wahiʀ.

Noun Edit
way

water
References Edit
"Bobot" in Greenhill, S.J., Blust, R., & Gray, R.D. (2008). The Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database: From Bioinformatics to Lexomics. Evolutionary Bioinformatics, 4:271-283.

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 7:30:29 PM UTC-5, DKleinecke wrote:

> Phonemes are what an alphabet should be.

Do you really think all the different allomorphs of, say, "photograph"
should be spelled differently? (Especially since they're stress-
conditioned?)

> That there is no one natural
> system of phonemes shows that they probably have no natural existence
> in terms of brain function. But until we have a better way of understanding
> a brain they are the best we have. Lately it has been fashionable to deny
> phonemes make sense but to substitute nothing in their place. Anybody
> who writes English should know that English spelling is very difficult to
> use precisely and, at least for English, phonemes are needed.
>
> One question of interest here is the two consonants of, say, "Hang". The
> utterances of "h" can never be mistaken for utterances of "ng" (which I
> write /q/) or vice versa so we might say they are two allophones of the
> same phoneme so "hang" is /hah/ or /qaq/. This is too extreme even for
> me and I keep /h/ and /q/ separate - /haq/. But it would be legal
> phonology.
>
> Incidentally I have a phoneme a majority of English speakers lack - /wh/.
> A voiceless /w/. I write "where" as /wher/ and "wear" is /wer/. Yes, I am
> strongly rhotic. People who merge /wh/ and /w/ are free to ignore the
> diacritic /h/.

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 9:54:18 PM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sun, 19 Dec 2021 20:53:58 +0100: wugi <wu...@scrlt.com> scribeva:
> >I don't support either camp, but how obscure can a statement be.
> >
> >UKE short/long ~ AmE diphthong?
> >or UKE long ~ AmE diphthong??
> >If /few/ is not considered having a long /u:/ then it has no diphthong
> >either???
> >/jutiliti/ has no diphthong but /ju:z/ has????
> >Father has a long vowel, ergo a diphthong?!
> For forced symmetry, they posit an /h/ there, which of course isn't an
> [h], because English

No, *British* English.

> phonotactics don't allow that. /fahðer/. Only
> short vowels.
> >I'm clearly missing a pointe here.

Clearly, but I can't tell what your latest problem is.

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 10:07:02 PM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:30:27 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:

> >Phonemes are what an alphabet should be.
> No. Written language and spoken language are two different things.
> >That there is no one natural
> >system of phonemes shows that they probably have no natural existence
> >in terms of brain function.
> Within one language, the situation is close to that. It's different
> for every language. And IPA tries to cover all of them, I learnt from
> PTD.

Tries to cover all phonemic distinctions. I quote from Passy's 1888
proto-IPA statement (when the notion of :phoneme" was not yet known:

"Box 1. Paul Passy, “Our Revised Alphabet” (Passy 1888)
"[Transcribed from Passy’s phonetic notation]
"In choosing between the various proposals that have been made for revising our alphabet, we’ve been guided by the following principles, which we think are admitted by most of our readers as essential to a practical system of phonetic spelling :
"1º There should be a separate sign for each distinctive sound; that is, for each sound which, being used instead of another, in the same language, can change the meaning of a word.
"2º When any sound is found in several languages, the same sign should be used in all. This applies also to very similar shades of sound. ..."

Op 20-12-2021 om 13:55 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 9:54:18 PM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sun, 19 Dec 2021 20:53:58 +0100: wugi <wu...@scrlt.com> scribeva:

>>> I'm clearly missing a pointe here.
>
> Clearly, but I can't tell what your latest problem is.

If that applies to me, I don't see any direct relation between
long/short distinction (of what?) and diphthongs. ("short/long is the
British phoneticians' way of describing what AmE calls diphthongs.", PTD)

Apart from the observation that long vowels (not all) tend to
diphthongize in English, any variety.
(Holland Dutch is mimicking it, with its own "long" oo and ee.)
(British English seeks some compensation by monophthising sounds like in
fire, wire, shower, flour.)

--
guido wugi

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 10:52:52 AM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
> Op 20-12-2021 om 13:55 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 9:54:18 PM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Sun, 19 Dec 2021 20:53:58 +0100: wugi <wu...@scrlt.com> scribeva:

> >>> I'm clearly missing a pointe here.
> > Clearly, but I can't tell what your latest problem is.
>
> If that applies to me,

I don't think it did.

> I don't see any direct relation between
> long/short distinction (of what?) and diphthongs. ("short/long is the
> British phoneticians' way of describing what AmE calls diphthongs.", PTD)
>
> Apart from the observation that long vowels (not all) tend to
> diphthongize in English, any variety.

It's pretty simple. British phoneticians tend to transcribe "lake"
as [le:k], American linguists as /leyk/, and their linguists seem
to have taken the phonetic practice over into their phonemic
transcriptions.

> (Holland Dutch is mimicking it, with its own "long" oo and ee.)
> (British English seeks some compensation by monophthising sounds like in
> fire, wire, shower, flour.)

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 10:52:52 AM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
> Op 20-12-2021 om 13:55 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 9:54:18 PM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Sun, 19 Dec 2021 20:53:58 +0100: wugi <wu...@scrlt.com> scribeva:
> >>> I'm clearly missing a pointe here.
> >
> > Clearly, but I can't tell what your latest problem is.
> If that applies to me, I don't see any direct relation between
> long/short distinction (of what?) and diphthongs. ("short/long is the
> British phoneticians' way of describing what AmE calls diphthongs.", PTD)
>
> Apart from the observation that long vowels (not all) tend to
> diphthongize in English, any variety.

the defecator in the living room did his business and will never clean it up.

Wugi cleared it up - but the steaming stinking turd left by the curse would live forever.
>
> --
> guido wugi

Op 20/12/2021 om 18:32 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
> On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 10:52:52 AM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
>> Op 20-12-2021 om 13:55 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
>>> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 9:54:18 PM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>> Sun, 19 Dec 2021 20:53:58 +0100: wugi <wu...@scrlt.com> scribeva:
>>>>> I'm clearly missing a pointe here.

(That was me, er, I :)

>>> Clearly, but I can't tell what your latest problem is.
>> If that applies to me,
> I don't think it did.

Oh but it did :)

>> I don't see any direct relation between
>> long/short distinction (of what?) and diphthongs. ("short/long is the
>> British phoneticians' way of describing what AmE calls diphthongs.", PTD)
>>
>> Apart from the observation that long vowels (not all) tend to
>> diphthongize in English, any variety.
> It's pretty simple. British phoneticians tend to transcribe "lake"
> as [le:k], American linguists as /leyk/, and their linguists seem
> to have taken the phonetic practice over into their phonemic
> transcriptions.

Aha. Admittedly a Brits "lake" may sound hardly diphthongized, but
nevertheless...

I'm used (at least I used to be) to the coding of my Wolters'
Woordenboeken, so that would be [leik]. Though by now I would prefer
[lejk] or even [le:jk]. It's almost exactly what trendy Holland Dutch is
nowadays making of "leek" [le:k], layperson/appeared, besides [bo:wm] of
"boom" [bo:m], tree.

>> (Holland Dutch is mimicking it, with its own "long" oo and ee.)
>> (British English seeks some compensation by monophthising sounds like in
>> fire, wire, shower, flour.)

(BrE [fa:], [wa:], [Sa:], [fla:])

--

guido wugi

On 20.12.2021 18:32, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>It's pretty simple. British phoneticians tend to transcribe "lake"
>as [le:k],

[leɪk]

(earlier [leik]; [lejk] might be acceptable, too)

[le:k] rather in pronunciations by ... Germans.

(Who by and large aren't aware of [eɪ]. Therefore, most of
them think "hey" and "OK" should be pronounced [heː] and [o:-ke:],
although the genuine [heɪ] pronunciation really exists
both in standard Hochdeutsch and in all regional dialects, as well.
Even variants such as [hɛɪ, hæɪ] (as it were written *häj).

BTW:
some Americans pronounce "rainbow" ['rɜnboʊ] instead of ['reɪnboʊ].
Methinks, IPA is much better for everybody to better show the
difference.

Also: a long vowel to be seen as a "diphtong" is an uncommon idea
(at least to most Europeans, even to Germans who think of Engl.
'hey' and 'OK' as the pronunciation were [he:, o:-ke:].

Unless the vowel is ... repeated, with a "pause" between the 1st and
the 2nd (same) vowel. (As in other languages e.g. re- + words starting
with e-; or in "co-operation, -operare".)

>American linguists as /leyk/, and their linguists seem
>to have taken the phonetic practice over into their phonemic
>transcriptions.

Or [lāk], as in Webster, Bantam &c dictionaries (for decades).
Where [ā] = IPA [eɪ] (or Daniel Jones [ei]), but [a] = [æ].

>>(Holland Dutch is mimicking it, with its own "long" oo and ee.)
>>(British English seeks some compensation by monophthising sounds like in
>>fire, wire, shower, flour.)

How come? Can't NL-Dutch utter [aɪə, aɪəː, aɪɜː, ɔɪə, (...)]? Or even
[ʌɪa, ʌɪɒ]. [ɪ = j] And [a,ʌ,ɒʊə / aʊa] (As in virtual any German
dialect.) E.g. Feuer, Schauer ['fɔɪəː(r); 'ʃaʊəː(r)]. &c.

Tim

On 20.12.2021 20:57, wugi wrote:

>It's almost exactly what trendy Holland Dutch is
>nowadays making of "leek" [le:k], layperson/appeared, besides [bo:wm] of
>"boom" [bo:m], tree.

Oha, da seid Ihr aber auch "typisch ... Deutsch", wa!
(Oder "genauer" gesagt: ... "Preußisch". :-D)

>(BrE [fa:], [wa:], [Sa:], [fla:])

In which BE dialect?! (In Northern ones?)

Tim

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 7:07:02 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:30:27 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke

> >Incidentally I have a phoneme a majority of English speakers lack - /wh/.
> >A voiceless /w/.
> No, it's /hw/. The Danes still write that: <hvid> is white in their
> language, although the no longer pronounce the [h]. /hw/ comes from
> /xw/ in Proto-Germanic, which was /kw/ or /khw/ in PIE.
> >I write "where" as /wher/ and "wear" is /wer/. Yes, I am
> >strongly rhotic. People who merge /wh/ and /w/ are free to ignore the
> >diacritic /h/.
> It's not a diacritic, but a phoneme that has become mute for many, but
> not all.

It's a compromise. I want the orthography of my phonemes to be simple
so I stick to the English letters (no thorn or edh or theta) (plus the
apostrophe for glottal stop). I declare "h" after a consonant to not be a
regular phoneme but rather function as a diacritic mark on the preceding
consonant changing it into a different phoneme.

I do no more phonology than I am compelled to. My interest is in syntax.

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 04:55:28 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 7:30:29 PM UTC-5, DKleinecke wrote:
>
>> Phonemes are what an alphabet should be.
>
>Do you really think all the different allomorphs of, say, "photograph"
>should be spelled differently? (Especially since they're stress-
>conditioned?)

Can "photograph" be stressed other that initially, ever, anywhere?

New to me.

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 4:55:29 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 7:30:29 PM UTC-5, DKleinecke wrote:
>
> > Phonemes are what an alphabet should be.
> Do you really think all the different allomorphs of, say, "photograph"
> should be spelled differently? (Especially since they're stress-
> conditioned?)

I imagine all alphabets to be trying to be a one letter per phoneme
systems. Some are more successful than others. Of course if one
is borrowing an alphabet rather than inventing your own the fit is
much harder to achieve.

I know stress is phonemic in English but my system is defective in
having no orthographic way to mark it. I suspect syllable division
may also be phonemic and I do write it with "."

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 4:17:19 PM UTC-5, Tim Lang wrote:
> On 20.12.2021 18:32, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >It's pretty simple. British phoneticians tend to transcribe "lake"
> >as [le:k],
> [leɪk]
>
> (earlier [leik]; [lejk] might be acceptable, too)
>
> [le:k] rather in pronunciations by ... Germans.
>
> (Who by and large aren't aware of [eɪ]. Therefore, most of
> them think "hey" and "OK" should be pronounced [heː] and [o:-ke:],
> although the genuine [heɪ] pronunciation really exists
> both in standard Hochdeutsch and in all regional dialects, as well.
> Even variants such as [hɛɪ, hæɪ] (as it were written *häj).

Distinguish closed ("checked") and open syllables!

> BTW:
> some Americans pronounce "rainbow" ['rɜnboʊ] instead of ['reɪnboʊ].
> Methinks, IPA is much better for everybody to better show the
> difference.

Backward-epsilon is the vowel of "er" without the rhotic component.
Where do they say "rainbow" that way?

The difference makes no difference if it doesn't distinguish two words
and is thus not phonemic and thus needs new letters only in a narrow
transcription, for which there isn't all that much need.

> Also: a long vowel to be seen as a "diphtong" is an uncommon idea
> (at least to most Europeans, even to Germans who think of Engl.
> 'hey' and 'OK' as the pronunciation were [he:, o:-ke:].
>
> Unless the vowel is ... repeated, with a "pause" between the 1st and
> the 2nd (same) vowel. (As in other languages e.g. re- + words starting
> with e-; or in "co-operation, -operare".)

I think we have repeated vowels only in extremely learnèd words like
"oöcyte."

"Cooperate" is /kowap@reyt/.

> >American linguists as /leyk/, and their linguists seem
> >to have taken the phonetic practice over into their phonemic
> >transcriptions.
>
> Or [lāk], as in Webster, Bantam &c dictionaries (for decades).

No -- they only use backslashes, so as not to take a position '
on phonemicization. They use macrons for "long vowels,"
which are the v owels that "say their name"

> Where [ā] = IPA [eɪ] (or Daniel Jones [ei]), but [a] = [æ].

Each dictionary company can make its own choices. Usually theiy're
based on what M-W used in the 1850s (decades before IPA).

> >>(Holland Dutch is mimicking it, with its own "long" oo and ee.)
> >>(British English seeks some compensation by monophthising sounds like in
> >>fire, wire, shower, flour.)
>
> How come? Can't NL-Dutch utter [aɪə, aɪəː, aɪɜː, ɔɪə, (...)]? Or even
> [ʌɪa, ʌɪɒ]. [ɪ = j] And [a,ʌ,ɒʊə / aʊa] (As in virtual any German
> dialect.) E.g. Feuer, Schauer ['fɔɪəː(r); 'ʃaʊəː(r)]. &c.

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 04:55:50 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 9:54:18 PM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sun, 19 Dec 2021 20:53:58 +0100: wugi <wu...@scrlt.com> scribeva:
>> >I don't support either camp, but how obscure can a statement be.
>> >
>> >UKE short/long ~ AmE diphthong?
>> >or UKE long ~ AmE diphthong??
>> >If /few/ is not considered having a long /u:/ then it has no diphthong
>> >either???
>> >/jutiliti/ has no diphthong but /ju:z/ has????
>> >Father has a long vowel, ergo a diphthong?!
>> For forced symmetry, they posit an /h/ there, which of course isn't an
>> [h], because English
>
>No, *British* English.
>
>> phonotactics don't allow that. /fahðer/. Only
>> short vowels.
>> >I'm clearly missing a pointe here.

Yeah, right, American English really has syllable-final [h]. Note that
I write [h], not /h/ in Americanist notation.

You're really hilarious sometimes. Can you, as a American, pronounce
Mehmet and Zahra? Come on.

>Clearly, but I can't tell what your latest problem is.

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 5:02:02 PM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Mon, 20 Dec 2021 04:55:28 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 7:30:29 PM UTC-5, DKleinecke wrote:
> >
> >> Phonemes are what an alphabet should be.
> >
> >Do you really think all the different allomorphs of, say, "photograph"
> >should be spelled differently? (Especially since they're stress-
> >conditioned?)
> Can "photograph" be stressed other that initially, ever, anywhere?
>
> New to me.

Good grief.
photograph-er, -y
photograph-ic