Attachments :
--- In, "wtsdv" <liberty@p...> wrote:
--- In, "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.