Pr. of Veloso

[Ruud Harmsen]

Is the Portuguese surname Veloso pronounced Velôso or Velóso?

I always thought it would be Velôso, but I think I just heard Salvador
Sobral anounce Caetano Veloso as Velóso? Or did I mishear that?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

[António Marques]

Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> Is the Portuguese surname Veloso pronounced Velôso or Velóso?

Closed o, no doubt.
I know of no context in which the open vowel could be used here.

It’s of course from velo ‘fleece’ cf villosum.

> I always thought it would be Velôso, but I think I just heard Salvador
> Sobral anounce Caetano Veloso as Velóso? Or did I mishear that?

I can’t say, I haven’t seen it. If you provide the customary clip I may
take a look.

[António Marques]

António Marques <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
>> Is the Portuguese surname Veloso pronounced Velôso or Velóso?
>
> Closed o, no doubt.
> I know of no context in which the open vowel could be used here.

I mean, /-Ozu/ is close to being contrary to phonotactics or something. A
verb can force a 1st person present in /-Ozu/ (gozo), but I think that’s
about it.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sun, 13 May 2018 03:22:58 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
<anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aomcisD48I
4:40 Again I hear: Caetano Velóso.

[António Marques]

No, it’s closed o. Maybe you hear it open because he says it short?

Code switching may also mangle things, but not here, I think.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 14 May 2018 13:07:15 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
<anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aomcisD48I
>> 4:40 Again I hear: Caetano Velóso.
>
>No, it’s closed o. Maybe you hear it open because he says it short?

I hear it as rather long.

It's just that Portuguese /O/ and /o/ (like /E/ and /e/) do not
properly correspond to my ideas and expecations of those, and possibly
also not to cardinal vowels and IPA.
http://rudhar.com/foneport/en/noteport/notep008.htm

>Code switching may also mangle things, but not here, I think.

Agreed. He switches quite well.

[António Marques]

Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> Mon, 14 May 2018 13:07:15 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
> <anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aomcisD48I
>>> 4:40 Again I hear: Caetano Velóso.
>>
>> No, it’s closed o. Maybe you hear it open because he says it short?
>
> I hear it as rather long.
>
> It's just that Portuguese /O/ and /o/ (like /E/ and /e/) do not
> properly correspond to my ideas and expecations of those, and possibly
> also not to cardinal vowels and IPA.

The 4 vowels are quite distinct (even in Galicia, with strong pressure from
vowel impoverished Spanish), but I wouldn’t know how they sound to the
international community.

Regarding how we hear others... pace notational accuracy, is it really the
case that English has aw /O/ and oa [ow] and ea /E/, but not standalone /o/
and no /e/ at all?

[Peter T. Daniels]

All "long" vowels in English are diphthongized.

(Which is why Smith-Trager-Bloch can use /e/ for [E], /i/ for [I], and
/u/ for [U], vs. /ey/ /iy/ /uw/ for the "long" equivalents.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mardi 15 mai 2018 14:32:03 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 8:11:53 AM UTC-4, António Marques wrote:
> > Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> > > Mon, 14 May 2018 13:07:15 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
> > > <anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:
> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aomcisD48I
> > >>> 4:40 Again I hear: Caetano Velóso.
> > >>
> > >> No, it’s closed o. Maybe you hear it open because he says it short?
> > >
> > > I hear it as rather long.
> > >
> > > It's just that Portuguese /O/ and /o/ (like /E/ and /e/) do not
> > > properly correspond to my ideas and expecations of those, and possibly
> > > also not to cardinal vowels and IPA.
> >
> > The 4 vowels are quite distinct (even in Galicia, with strong pressure from
> > vowel impoverished Spanish), but I wouldn’t know how they sound to the
> > international community.
> >
> > Regarding how we hear others... pace notational accuracy, is it really the
> > case that English has aw /O/ and oa [ow] and ea /E/, but not standalone /o/
> > and no /e/ at all?
>
> All "long" vowels in English are diphthongized.

What about those who don't have "long" vowels?
A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

They are not native speakers of English.

As I have pointed out again and again, British linguists tend to
phonemicize the diphthongs using an additional phoneme /:/ (length),
while American linguists tend to phonemicize them as diphthongs. In
either case, the syllabic nuclei in question have greater duration
than the "short" vowels, i.e. those that are lax / not diphthongized.

This is a different sense from that of the American school term "long
vowels," which refers to vowels that "say their name," the result of the
Great English Vowel Shift that set in over the course of the 15th century.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mardi 15 mai 2018 15:09:03 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 8:46:28 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> > Le mardi 15 mai 2018 14:32:03 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 8:11:53 AM UTC-4, António Marques wrote:
> > > > Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> > > > > Mon, 14 May 2018 13:07:15 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
> > > > > <anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>
> > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aomcisD48I
> > > > >>> 4:40 Again I hear: Caetano Velóso.
> > > > >> No, it’s closed o. Maybe you hear it open because he says it short?
> > > > > I hear it as rather long.
> > > > > It's just that Portuguese /O/ and /o/ (like /E/ and /e/) do not
> > > > > properly correspond to my ideas and expecations of those, and possibly
> > > > > also not to cardinal vowels and IPA.
> > > > The 4 vowels are quite distinct (even in Galicia, with strong pressure from
> > > > vowel impoverished Spanish), but I wouldn’t know how they sound to the
> > > > international community.
> > > > Regarding how we hear others... pace notational accuracy, is it really the
> > > > case that English has aw /O/ and oa [ow] and ea /E/, but not standalone /o/
> > > > and no /e/ at all?
> > > All "long" vowels in English are diphthongized.
> >
> > What about those who don't have "long" vowels?
>
> They are not native speakers of English.

ah, I suppose Scots will be happy to learn that...
I'll let you explain it to them...
A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Scots consider the Scots language not to be a dialect of English, but a
separate Germanic language.

I consider it unlikely that there is no length distinction within Scots,
however. Can someone who actually knows something about the language
enlighten us?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 15 May 2018 12:11:52 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

<anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:

>Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
>> Mon, 14 May 2018 13:07:15 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
>> <anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aomcisD48I
>>>> 4:40 Again I hear: Caetano Velóso.
>>>

>>> No, it?s closed o. Maybe you hear it open because he says it short?

>>
>> I hear it as rather long.
>>
>> It's just that Portuguese /O/ and /o/ (like /E/ and /e/) do not
>> properly correspond to my ideas and expecations of those, and possibly
>> also not to cardinal vowels and IPA.
>
>The 4 vowels are quite distinct (even in Galicia, with strong pressure from
>vowel impoverished Spanish), but I wouldn’t know how they sound to the
>international community.
>
>Regarding how we hear others... pace notational accuracy, is it really the
>case that English has aw /O/ and oa [ow] and ea /E/, but not standalone /o/
>and no /e/ at all?

It has, /novemb@/ and <get> = /get/ = [get].

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 15 May 2018 06:09:00 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 8:46:28 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>> Le mardi 15 mai 2018 14:32:03 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>> > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 8:11:53 AM UTC-4, António Marques wrote:
>> > > Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
>> > > > Mon, 14 May 2018 13:07:15 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
>> > > > <anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>
>> > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aomcisD48I
>> > > >>> 4:40 Again I hear: Caetano Velóso.
>> > > >> No, it’s closed o. Maybe you hear it open because he says it short?
>> > > > I hear it as rather long.
>> > > > It's just that Portuguese /O/ and /o/ (like /E/ and /e/) do not
>> > > > properly correspond to my ideas and expecations of those, and possibly
>> > > > also not to cardinal vowels and IPA.
>> > > The 4 vowels are quite distinct (even in Galicia, with strong pressure from
>> > > vowel impoverished Spanish), but I wouldn’t know how they sound to the
>> > > international community.
>> > > Regarding how we hear others... pace notational accuracy, is it really the
>> > > case that English has aw /O/ and oa [ow] and ea /E/, but not standalone /o/
>> > > and no /e/ at all?
>> > All "long" vowels in English are diphthongized.
>>
>> What about those who don't have "long" vowels?

/O:/ in <law> and <saw> isn't. Neither is <A> in <father>, <last> in
<fast>.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 15 May 2018 07:25:54 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

Scots is not the same as English with a Scottish accent.

>I consider it unlikely that there is no length distinction within Scots,
>however.

Not phonemically, or only in some varieties. Where is my Daniel Jones
copy when I need it?

>Can someone who actually knows something about the language
>enlighten us?

Everything is in Wikipedia these days. About the real Scots language:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language#Phonology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Scots#Phonology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_Scots

[wugi]

Op 15/05/2018 om 14:32 schreef Peter T. Daniels:

I wouldn't think in terms of diphthongs in the case of
a: in father, o: in law, @: in fir, fur, term.
But yes for the remaining:
main, heel, fine, moan, rude,
and the diphthongs 'proper' of course...

... though there I've reported already a tendency to re-monophthongise some:
fire, admire, shower, power, sounding like
fâh, admâh, shâh, pâh in some's RP.

--
guido wugi

[wugi]

Op 14/05/2018 om 15:07 schreef António Marques:

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aomcisD48I
>> 4:40 Again I hear: Caetano Velóso.
> No, it’s closed o. Maybe you hear it open because he says it short?

It doesn't sound closed or short to me either.

I find that Portuguese, while it swallows or merely mumbles most of its
unstressed vowels (not to say syllables:), in return deems it only but
right to render the stressed ones with extra vigour and punch, so then:
not too short, not too closed, better diphthongize a bit, don't you
know... ;-)

--
guido wugi

[António Marques]

I hear get with [E]; I do think of en/em as having [e], but I usually put
that down to my Portuguese mindset, since I hear [now’vEmb@] when I try to
actually listen.

NB these notations are coarse, not taking into account that I hear almost
all English vowels as somewhat diphthongised, but below the analysis level.

[António Marques]

wugi <br...@brol.be> wrote:
> Op 14/05/2018 om 15:07 schreef António Marques:
>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aomcisD48I
>>> 4:40 Again I hear: Caetano Velóso.
>> No, it’s closed o. Maybe you hear it open because he says it short?
>
> It doesn't sound closed or short to me either.

It sounds shorter than in normal speech. Maybe that’s not short by
international standards.

> I find that Portuguese, while it swallows or merely mumbles most of its
> unstressed vowels (not to say syllables:), in return deems it only but
> right to render the stressed ones with extra vigour and punch, so then:
> not too short, not too closed, better diphthongize a bit, don't you
> know... ;-)

I don’t think it’s like that, but I do see that must be how foreigners hear
it.

Some dialects do have diphthongs for stressed /e E o O/. Romanians should
feel almost at home.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 15 May 2018 06:09:00 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 8:46:28 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> >> Le mardi 15 mai 2018 14:32:03 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> >> > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 8:11:53 AM UTC-4, António Marques wrote:

> >> > > Regarding how we hear others... pace notational accuracy, is it really the
> >> > > case that English has aw /O/ and oa [ow] and ea /E/, but not standalone /o/
> >> > > and no /e/ at all?
> >> > All "long" vowels in English are diphthongized.
> >> What about those who don't have "long" vowels?
>
> /O:/ in <law> and <saw> isn't. Neither is <A> in <father>, <last> in
> <fast>.

Maybe you're only familiar with RP sorts of English. AmE law, saw have the
usual centralizing offglide. The /a/ of father doesn't seem long to me
(perhaps because it isn't diphthongized). Remember, RP-speakers are
incapable of pronouncing /a/ in a closed syllable, hence the travesty
they make of Barack, of Las (Vegas), etc.

Final /a/ is very unusual in English. IIRC Chomsky & Halle's only example is "spa."

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 11:31:04 AM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
> Op 15/05/2018 om 14:32 schreef Peter T. Daniels:

> > All "long" vowels in English are diphthongized.
> >
> > (Which is why Smith-Trager-Bloch can use /e/ for [E], /i/ for [I], and
> > /u/ for [U], vs. /ey/ /iy/ /uw/ for the "long" equivalents.
>
> I wouldn't think in terms of diphthongs in the case of
> a: in father, o: in law, @: in fir, fur, term.

Obviously there's no @: (whether /@:/ or [@:]) in English. Even Brit
linguists describing RP admit /r/ postvocalically and delete it with
a very low-level rule. The realization of /@r/ in RP is not [@] (with
or without r-coloring).

> But yes for the remaining:
> main, heel, fine, moan, rude,
> and the diphthongs 'proper' of course...
>
> ... though there I've reported already a tendency to re-monophthongise some:
> fire, admire, shower, power, sounding like
> fâh, admâh, shâh, pâh in some's RP.

RP is probably transitional. The gymnastics it has to go through to reach
those surface forms from the underlying forms indicated in the spelling
are unsustainable. I have a feeling that the pronunciations you report
there are archaic anyway -- perhaps dating no later than the 1940s,
unless there are some reactionaries who try to preserve their grandfathers'
speechways. (Not their grandmothers: a robust finding of sociolinguistics
is that language change is driven by socially respected females.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 2:23:26 PM UTC-4, António Marques wrote:
> Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> > Tue, 15 May 2018 12:11:52 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
> > <anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:
> >
> >> Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> >>> Mon, 14 May 2018 13:07:15 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
> >>> <anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:
> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aomcisD48I
> >>>>> 4:40 Again I hear: Caetano Velóso.

> >>>> No, it?s closed o. Maybe you hear it open because he says it short?
> >>> I hear it as rather long.
> >>> It's just that Portuguese /O/ and /o/ (like /E/ and /e/) do not
> >>> properly correspond to my ideas and expecations of those, and possibly
> >>> also not to cardinal vowels and IPA.
> >> The 4 vowels are quite distinct (even in Galicia, with strong pressure from
> >> vowel impoverished Spanish), but I wouldn’t know how they sound to the
> >> international community.
> >> Regarding how we hear others... pace notational accuracy, is it really the
> >> case that English has aw /O/ and oa [ow] and ea /E/, but not standalone /o/
> >> and no /e/ at all?
> > It has, /novemb@/ and <get> = /get/ = [get].
>
> I hear get with [E]; I do think of en/em as having [e], but I usually put
> that down to my Portuguese mindset, since I hear [now’vEmb@] when I try to
> actually listen.

I didn't comment because his notations seem very muddled. [get], for
instance, is "gate," which is not /get/ but /geyt/ (BrLing /ge:t/).
"Get" is [gEt].

If your en/em are the printers' measures, they are [En Em].

> NB these notations are coarse, not taking into account that I hear almost
> all English vowels as somewhat diphthongised, but below the analysis level.

Precisely.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 8:04:48 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 11:31:04 AM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
> > Op 15/05/2018 om 14:32 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > > All "long" vowels in English are diphthongized.

Except when they aren't, when you will rule that they are not "English".
I assume you'll use the same trick with West Indian Eng as you did with
Scottish.

> > >
> > > (Which is why Smith-Trager-Bloch can use /e/ for [E], /i/ for [I], and
> > > /u/ for [U], vs. /ey/ /iy/ /uw/ for the "long" equivalents.
> >
> > I wouldn't think in terms of diphthongs in the case of
> > a: in father, o: in law, @: in fir, fur, term.
>
> Obviously there's no @: (whether /@:/ or [@:]) in English.

Obviously??

Even Brit linguists describing RP admit /r/ postvocalically and delete it with
> a very low-level rule.

Example (I mean of one of these linguists)? You mean they have "underlying"
/r/ in park, word, horse, etc. and then get rid of it?

The realization of /@r/ in RP is not [@] (with
> or without r-coloring).

So what is it? You mean you'd rather write it as [ɜ]?

> > But yes for the remaining:
> > main, heel, fine, moan, rude,
> > and the diphthongs 'proper' of course...
> >
> > ... though there I've reported already a tendency to re-monophthongise some:
> > fire, admire, shower, power, sounding like
> > fâh, admâh, shâh, pâh in some's RP.
>
> RP is probably transitional. The gymnastics it has to go through to reach
> those surface forms from the underlying forms indicated in the spelling
> are unsustainable.

Hint: This may mean there is something wrong with the "underlying forms".

I have a feeling that the pronunciations you report
> there are archaic anyway -- perhaps dating no later than the 1940s,
> unless there are some reactionaries who try to preserve their grandfathers'
> speechways. (Not their grandmothers: a robust finding of sociolinguistics
> is that language change is driven by socially respected females.)

What would your "feeling" be based on?

Peter Roach, "British English: Received Pronunciation", Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 34 (2): 239–245 (2004)

Includes transcription of the standard "North Wind and the Sun" passage -
female speaker, born 1953.

The stressed vowels of "north", "warm(ly)", "agreed", "first", "blew", "hard",
"more", "last", "immediately" and "two" are long, not diphthongic.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 15 May 2018 13:08:31 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>> I hear get with [E]; I do think of en/em as having [e], but I usually put
>> that down to my Portuguese mindset, since I hear [now’vEmb@] when I try to
>> actually listen.
>
>I didn't comment because his notations

They're not mine, they're theirs.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 15 May 2018 12:58:55 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>> >> > All "long" vowels in English are diphthongized.
>> >> What about those who don't have "long" vowels?
>>
>> /O:/ in <law> and <saw> isn't. Neither is <A> in <father>, <last> in
>> <fast>.
>
>Maybe you're only familiar with RP sorts of English. AmE law, saw have the
>usual centralizing offglide.

"Usual"? Never heard that, not even in American English.

It's the lawawawaw!!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbdTMK66tq4

>The /a/ of father doesn't seem long to me
>(perhaps because it isn't diphthongized). Remember, RP-speakers are
>incapable of pronouncing /a/ in a closed syllable, hence the travesty
>they make of Barack, of Las (Vegas), etc.

Noncsensc.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 15 May 2018 13:04:46 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>> ... though there I've reported already a tendency to re-monophthongise some:
>> fire, admire, shower, power, sounding like
>> fâh, admâh, shâh, pâh in some's RP.
>
>RP is probably transitional. The gymnastics it has to go through to reach
>those surface forms from the underlying forms indicated in the spelling
>are unsustainable. I have a feeling that the pronunciations you report
>there are archaic anyway -- perhaps dating no later than the 1940s,
>unless there are some reactionaries who try to preserve their grandfathers'
>speechways. (Not their grandmothers: a robust finding of sociolinguistics
>is that language change is driven by socially respected females.)

South-Brit. Who was that late sci.lang contributor who invented the
term?

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

pjk (Paul J Kriha) used the term "SBrit English" here a couple of years ago
(referring to Bertrand Russell's language). This was queried by Hen Hanna,
who may have turned it into "South-Brit".

"Standard Southern British" is a term that has been used (e.g. in the
Handbook of the IPA, 1999) to mean:

"...the modern equivalent of what has been called 'Received Pronunciation' ('RP'). It is an accent of the south east of England which operates as a prestige norm there and (to varying degrees) in other parts of the British
Isles and beyond."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation

[António Marques]

It was John Atkinson.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 16 May 2018 14:48:17 -0700 (PDT): "benl...@ihug.co.nz"
<benl...@ihug.co.nz> scribeva:

>On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 3:10:03 AM UTC+12, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Tue, 15 May 2018 13:04:46 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>> >> ... though there I've reported already a tendency to re-monophthongise some:
>> >> fire, admire, shower, power, sounding like
>> >> fâh, admâh, shâh, pâh in some's RP.
>> >
>> >RP is probably transitional. The gymnastics it has to go through to reach
>> >those surface forms from the underlying forms indicated in the spelling
>> >are unsustainable. I have a feeling that the pronunciations you report
>> >there are archaic anyway -- perhaps dating no later than the 1940s,
>> >unless there are some reactionaries who try to preserve their grandfathers'
>> >speechways. (Not their grandmothers: a robust finding of sociolinguistics
>> >is that language change is driven by socially respected females.)
>>
>> South-Brit. Who was that late sci.lang contributor who invented the
>> term?
>
>pjk (Paul J Kriha) used the term "SBrit English" here a couple of years ago
>(referring to Bertrand Russell's language). This was queried by Hen Hanna,
>who may have turned it into "South-Brit".

John Atkinson.

>"Standard Southern British" is a term that has been used (e.g. in the
>Handbook of the IPA, 1999) to mean:
>
>"...the modern equivalent of what has been called 'Received Pronunciation' ('RP'). It is an accent of the south east of England which operates as a prestige norm there and (to varying degrees) in other parts of the British
>Isles and beyond."
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation

[Ruud Harmsen]

>> who may have turned it into "South-Brit".

>It was John Atkinson.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.obituaries/Ai60QQrmx5s

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 7:55:04 PM UTC+12, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Wed, 16 May 2018 14:48:17 -0700 (PDT): "benl...@ihug.co.nz"
> <benl...@ihug.co.nz> scribeva:
>
> >On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 3:10:03 AM UTC+12, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Tue, 15 May 2018 13:04:46 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >>
> >> >> ... though there I've reported already a tendency to re-monophthongise some:
> >> >> fire, admire, shower, power, sounding like
> >> >> fâh, admâh, shâh, pâh in some's RP.
> >> >
> >> >RP is probably transitional. The gymnastics it has to go through to reach
> >> >those surface forms from the underlying forms indicated in the spelling
> >> >are unsustainable. I have a feeling that the pronunciations you report
> >> >there are archaic anyway -- perhaps dating no later than the 1940s,
> >> >unless there are some reactionaries who try to preserve their grandfathers'
> >> >speechways. (Not their grandmothers: a robust finding of sociolinguistics
> >> >is that language change is driven by socially respected females.)
> >>
> >> South-Brit. Who was that late sci.lang contributor who invented the
> >> term?
> >
> >pjk (Paul J Kriha) used the term "SBrit English" here a couple of years ago
> >(referring to Bertrand Russell's language). This was queried by Hen Hanna,
> >who may have turned it into "South-Brit".
>
> John Atkinson.

That long ago? John was a great contributor, sorely missed.