Xref: utzoo sci.lang:4576 comp.cog-eng:1133 sci.psychology:1931
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!minya!jc
From: jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,comp.cog-eng,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Regional accents (was: Spelling and Perceptual Mode)
Keywords: GB Shaw, orthography
Message-ID: <5@minya.UUCP>
Date: 19 May 89 16:01:51 GMT
References: <2763@puff.cs.wisc.edu> <60340@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <11726@bcsaic.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: (none)
Lines: 53

In article <11726@bcsaic.UUCP>, rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>			...  I doubt that we Americans would get to
> retain syllable-final /r/ in spelling, for example.  So a simple word like
> 'farm' would have to be spelled something like 'fam,' much to the dismay of
> standard American speakers, who scarcely realize that the /r/ is missing in
> many British and American dialects.  

Not true at all.  A reasonable English phonemic spelling system would include 
this /r/ in the spelling, with a note that some dialects (British RP, New 
England, etc.) have a deletion rule for non-pre-vocalic /r/.  This is no more
a problem than, say, the German and Russian rules for final devoicing (which
don't actually apply to quite all the dialects of either language.)  Likewise,
you would spell initial /h/, and give deletion rules.

You also need an r-insertion rule for some English dialects (including both
RP and NE); that need not be indicated in the spelling, because it is quite
predictable from the environment.  Non-pre-vocalic /r/ is not predictable,
so it must be indicated.

The argument that "you can't have a logical spelling system for a language
with dialects" is an old one, and is a total red herring.  Almost all 
languages have dialects; this is no barrier at all to having a logical
spelling system.  The basic approach is to spell things that are in any
of the major dialects, and have a list of pronunciation rules.

> [For those interested in Russian spelling only:]
> 
> The word for 'good' is spelled something like 'xorosho' in Russian, with three
> 'o' vowels.  Stress is on the final /O/ (open /O/ similar to the vowel in
> 'horse').  It is pronounced [x@rashO], where @ = schwa ('u' in 'luck') and a =
> the vowel in 'mom'.  A good way to think of Russian vowel reduction is as
> follows:  replace all unstressed /O/ vowels with [@].  Then replace [@] with
> [a] if it precedes a stressed syllable or is in absolute initial position.  So
> the word for 'cities' is spelled 'goroda' and pronounced [g@rada] with stress
> on the final syllable.  The word for 'garden' is spelled 'ogorod' and
> pronounced [agarOt] with stress on the final syllable.  Unstressed high vowels
> do not reduce in Russian, and reduced vowels after palatalized consonants
> undergo fronting.
 
Actually, this isn't quite correct; it gives the wrong value for written 'a'
in noninitial, nonstressed position.  You need a third rule, or use a better 
formulation:
	1. Rewrite unstressed 'o' as 'a'.
	2. Pronounce unstressed 'a' as /@/ if not initial or prestress.
I've seen both formulations in texts; the latter is simpler.

There's also a separate set of rules when 'o', 'a', or 'e' follow a soft
consonant, of course.

-- 
--
All opinions Copyright 1989 by John Chambers; for licensing information contact:
	John Chambers <{adelie,ima,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)