--- In phoNet@yahoogroups.com, "wtsdv" <liberty@p...> wrote:

>

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"

> 
> > Is it obvious why you group

/e/ with /E/ rather than with /I/? 

>
> I don't understand

this.  /E/ and /e/ are closer and such a

> grouping would give /sej/

for 'see' and /sEj/ for 'say'.  It

> would also destroy the

front/back parallelism unless you mean

> to group /o/ with /U/

also.  What have I misunderstood?

 

I thought some more about this and I think I see what you
are saying.  I can't figure out how to handle all of the phonetic
symbols in e-mail, nor how to make charts, so I've prepared
and attached a picture file to answer you.  Chart A shows
what I think is my version of the English sound system and
some of its rules.  B shows your suggested grouping of /e/
with /I/, and I include a parallel grouping of /o/ with /U/.
C and D show the two other possible divisions of the rest of
the system given your suggested division of the upper area.
E shows the system as I suggest it should be divided.

 

David