Re: Galveston

Sat, 22 Mar 2025 20:30:24 +1300: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
scribeva:

On 22/03/2025 7:59 p.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:

Sat, 22 Mar 2025 09:46:53 +1300: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
scribeva:

Here's how the phonemic analysis of AmEng that I was taught many years
ago treats this:
The vowel of the -ton syllable is [?]; it occurs only unstressed.

 
Shwa. (My crappy old Agent program can see nor post IPA (although it
can post in UTF8). But I easily guessed what you posted, and confirmed
it by looking under the hood, in the data file. Linux IS fully Unicode
enabled.)
 

It's in complementary distribution with the phonetically similar [?] in

 
Upside down v.
 

"gun" and "one", which occurs only stressed.
So the two are allophones of one phoneme.
(In the current pronunciation regime of OED, all three of these vowels
are written as <?>.*)

 
Yes, I understand that’s the explanation. But I still think it’s a
weird rhyme, because of the stress difference,

>
I would say it's a weird pronunciation of "Galveston", with an extra
stress that shouldn't be there. But given that pronunciation, there's
nothing wrong with the rhyme.

Yes, I can agree with that. For AmEng, that is. Even with that stress,
still largely unthinkable in South-Brit, I would think. But I cannot
speak for them, being a non-native speaker.

and because in my view

(which is not mainstream and is not scientifically based, I know),
they are not the same phoneme. Being in complementary distribution
isn’t enough of a criterion for that. <h> and <ng> are also in
complementary distribution, but clearly not the same phoneme, and they
couldn’t ever rhyme.

>
But we know the answer to that one is that they are not phonetically
similar. Whereas [?] and [?] certainly are.
Personally, as a speaker of NAmEng, I consider the theory intuitively
plausible. It also accounts for why, for many speakers, the stressed
forms of words like "of" and "from" have [?].

Perhaps, yes.

I also consider the history of the language and the phonemes. I know
very well that according to any phonemic theory, and PTD, I shouldn’t,
but I do it anyway. The BUG vowel has an unrounded [o] realisation in
Northern England, which shwa could never have. <but> (when stressed)
and <butt> and <put>, <look> and <luck> have the same vowel there. The
origin and sound of shwa in English, as in Galveston, is totally
different and unconnected.

>
A phonological version of the Etymological Fallacy?

(Had to look that up, didn't know the term, do recognise the
phenomenon.) Probably, yes, except that here of course I don’t
consider it a fallacy.

This also reminds me of a discussion we had years ago, about Memphis
sounding like Memphus, in a song sung by Cher. Unthinkable in
South-Brit. The THIS and THUS vowels are always distinct there.

>
They're quite distinct for me, too. What you mean is that in S-B (RP?)

SB = anything not Canadian or US, inclusing Australian and
New-Zealandish, perhaps also South-African. What about Irish English?

the (various) unstressed vowels have sorted themselves into just two
groups, where as for me (and I guess most NAmEng speakers, and others)
there's only one.

--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com