Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!pacbell.com!gw2.att.com!nntpa!mac-118.lz.att.com!user
From: rte@elmo.lz.att.com (Ralph T. Edwards)
Subject: Re: schwa
Message-ID: <rte-0908951313350001@mac-118.lz.att.com>
Sender: news@nntpa.cb.att.com (Netnews Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mac-118.lz.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
References: <405kir$psk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <Bob_Michael-080895122702@nrtpmc16.rtp.nt.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 18:13:35 GMT
Lines: 33

In article <Bob_Michael-080895122702@nrtpmc16.rtp.nt.com>,
Bob_Michael@nt.com (Bob Michael) wrote:

> In article <405kir$psk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, etg10@cl.cam.ac.uk (Edmund
> Grimley-Evans) wrote:
> 
> > Does anyone try to argue that schwa is not a phoneme of modern English?
> 
> Can anyone point to an English word with a schwa that *must* be a schwa? 
> In careful speech or singing, seems to me most or all of them can be
> substituted for with perfect intelligibility.  


BE and AE - about around china ...

BE - worker ...

In general, substituting a different vowel for an unstressed schwa sounds
artificial to me.  There are some ambiguous exceptions, the o in melody
for example, and similar words, which may be either /o/ or /@/ (for me at
least).

Pet peeve:
substituting /e(I)/ for the indefinite article.  Sounds pedantic.  Even
worse than pronouncing the t in often.  (I'm acting as an informant here,
so I'm allowed to offer opinions:-).)  I think the cases where substitutions
are OK are fewer than where it sounds peculiar.

Is there anyone who reads this group who doesn't cringe when someone
says defend ant for defendant?  (Obviously a member of an insect colony.)

-- 
R.T.Edwards rte@elmo.att.com 908 576-3031
