Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Re: Credibility
Message-ID: <496@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 17:01:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.496
Posted: Wed Jul 17 17:01:07 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 16:17:23 EDT
References: <271@sri-arpa.ARPA> <483@oliveb.UUCP> <759@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 19
Summary: 


In article <759@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
 (Mitchell Marks) writes:

>      This argument says nothing against the suggestion that 'photo' should
>be 'foto'.  But notice that a sound-spelling of 'photographic' might be
>'fot@graefIk' , wher I'm using @ for reduced vowels like the schwa there,

I have long been a bit annoyed at the insistence of linguists (phonologists?)
that vowels which are "reduced" are all pronounced the same.  I don't think
this is actually true, at least not all the time.  In the example above,
the second "o" in "photographic" may be pronounced as a schwa, a long o,
or anywhere in between.  So why not spell it as a long o, recognizing that
speakers will reduce it to varying extents, including all the way to a schwa?

Let me suggest an experiment.  Write down the word "photographic", and ask
a number of people how it is pronounced.  I suspect many if not most will
clearly pronounce the second o as a long o.  Granted that those same people
reduce it to a schwa in ordinary conversation.  But is pronunciation in
ordinary conversation the only appropriate standard?