Serafín wrote:The correction of [e] > [e:] makes sense only if we're talking about imitating 1st century BC Latin, but then [aI] > [aj] can hardly be argued for...
Doh, do I have to spell it out - it's not a correction on the pronunciation, but on the transcription; I was pointing out it's very English-y to use [aI] for ae instead of [ai] or [aj], regardless of what it was, which in this case is even hardly relevant as somebody pointed out.
It's like if I changed color to colour on grounds of color being too American for somebody who tried to be British.
The length thing was a genuine correction but also intended nitpickish.
Rekettye wrote:I'd be inclined to say ['vi:naɪ 'ka:vaɪ], but only because I got into the habit of pronouncing Latin <ae> as [aɪ] when learning.
Incidentally, I'd say Aeneas [aɪ'neɪja:s] rather than [ɛ'ni:əs], and Laocoon as [ˌla:ʔoʊ'kɔ:ʔɔ:n], not ['leɪjəˌkʉ:n]
Is this just for venae because it's a bit uncommon or you'd also say it for hominidae, algae, antennae, ... (well, I doubt these are very common, but there must be something)?
Ean wrote:Is this just for venae because it's a bit uncommon or you'd also say it for hominidae, algae, antennae, ... (well, I doubt these are very common, but there must be something)?
Hmm I think I'd say [aɪ] in nearly all cases, except ['algi] for some reason. For <antennae> I'd say [an'tɛnaɪ]. But in that case it's actually standard BrE to say [aɪ], I think...
Hominidae I'm not sure about, so it's a guess really. That also happens in English, come across a word you've never heard before with a weird spelling and coming up with something you think might be viable.
It's worth noting that the Japanese would transcribe it as アエ. They did with a recent film called 'Thermae Romae', or テルマエ・ロマエ. Of course, this is just based on the spelling, but Japanese is one of the few languages I know that distinguishes the diphthongs /ae/ and /ai/ (phonologically it's easier and more accurate to say they are separate vowels rather than diphthongs, but still).
Nah, it's Wikipedia, they change their conventions every now and then. They used to do "" and "[ɪ]" in the past. I guess some user pointed out that there's no minimal pair between the FLEECE and the HAPPY sets that doesn't involve stress as well, so they've started writing them the same.
Some of their conventions annoy me – like they use ɨ as a symbol to mean "ɪ or ə depending on the dialect", but this leads to people thinking English has [ɨ]... I'd never seen anyone else use it at all before Wikipedia.
"There was a particular car I soon came to think of as distinctly St. Louis-ish: a gigantic white S.U.V. with a W. bumper sticker on it for George W. Bush."
finlay wrote:Some of their conventions annoy me – like they use ɨ as a symbol to mean "ɪ or ə depending on the dialect", but this leads to people thinking English has [ɨ]... I'd never seen anyone else use it at all before Wikipedia.
Umm... does English not have a near-close [ɨ] as an unstressed allophone of /ɪ/, also known as a schwi? Yes, it may not be perfectly central in all cases, but it is still significantly more central than the stressed [ɪ].
finlay wrote:Some of their conventions annoy me – like they use ɨ as a symbol to mean "ɪ or ə depending on the dialect", but this leads to people thinking English has [ɨ]... I'd never seen anyone else use it at all before Wikipedia.
Umm... does English not have a near-close [ɨ] as an unstressed allophone of /ɪ/, also known as a schwi? Yes, it may not be perfectly central in all cases, but it is still significantly more central than the stressed [ɪ].
could do, not for me though. that said sometimes scottish /ɪ/ is very centralised anyway, but that's when it's stressed too. also i've kinda lost that particular feature.
)
