International accent.

Fair enough. Although if I understand it rightly, Canepari proposes a "semi-approximant" for coda R, something in between the american "r" and the British schwa. Skinner's coda R is written as a schwa, but with the possibility of r-coloring always allowed. If you listen to the recordings that come with the book, even the supposedly "non-rhotic" pronunciation sounds like a lightly pronounced R -- which is, I suppose, what is meant by the "semi-approximant."

You seem to be right about TRAP-BATH, though.

(Also, I made a mistake, it's "Speak with Distinction".)

Fair enough. Although if I understand it rightly, Canepari proposes a "semi-approximant" for coda R, something in between the american "r" and the British schwa. Skinner's coda R is written as a schwa, but with the possibility of r-coloring always allowed. If you listen to the recordings that come with the book, even the supposedly "non-rhotic" pronunciation sounds like a lightly pronounced R -- which is, I suppose, what is meant by the "semi-approximant."

You seem to be right about TRAP-BATH, though.

(Also, I made a mistake, it's "Speak with Distinction".)

What Edith Skinner prescribed for this theater dialect was [aː] for BATH, distinct from [æ] in TRAP, but also distinct from [ɑː] in FATHER. Her theater standard doesn't have the FATHER-BOTHER merger either. It is non-rhotic, but SPAR [spɑə] and SPA [spɑː] don't rhyme. I haven't had the chance to listen to the recordings that come with the book (what format are those recordings in? I understand the book went out of print decades ago)

<<The proposed scheme is very similar to what was used in American movies in the old days (20s-40s?), especially by ladies, and to what is proposed as a standard theater English by Edith Skinner in her "Talk with distinction.">>

I could be wrong, but I suspect that old theater accent probably would have distinguished "Mary-merry" and "hurry-furry", unlike Canepari's proposal.

<<What Edith Skinner prescribed for this theater dialect was [aː] for BATH, distinct from [æ] in TRAP, but also distinct from [ɑː] in FATHER. Her theater standard doesn't have the FATHER-BOTHER merger either. It is non-rhotic, but SPAR [spɑə] and SPA [spɑː] don't rhyme.>>

That's amazing! Maintaining all 5 of the phonemes [a:], [{], [A:], [A@], [Q] would be an intriguing prospect. (I think I could mostly pull it off, except I'm not sure if I could clearly distinguish [A@] from [A:].) I wonder if this theater dialect also maintained the "horse-hoarse" distinction with [O:] and [O@], like old-fashioned RP.

Lol, it should be "...I suspect that that old theater accent...", in order to avoid a garden path sentence. ;-)

<<That's amazing! Maintaining all 5 of the phonemes [a:], [{], [A:], [A@], [Q] would be an intriguing prospect. (I think I could mostly pull it off, except I'm not sure if I could clearly distinguish [A@] from [A:].) I wonder if this theater dialect also maintained the "horse-hoarse" distinction with [O:] and [O@], like old-fashioned RP.>>

As far as I can see, this dialect is HORSE-HOARSE merged, both towards [hɔəs]. Again, it differs from RP in that SAW [sɔː] and SORE [sɔə] don't rhyme. It does distinguish FERRY from FAIRY and HURRY from FURRY don't rhyme. It even has [o] for the initial vowel in OBEY instead of schwa. Little wonder it sounds stilted and artificial!

<<As far as I can see, this dialect is HORSE-HOARSE merged, both towards [hɔəs]. Again, it differs from RP in that SAW [sɔː] and SORE [sɔə] don't rhyme.>>

Oh, I see; it's horse-hoarse merged, but it maintains [O@] where rhotic speech would have [O@`], and [O:] where rhotic speech would have [O:], analogous to its [A@]~[A:] distinction. Okay.

<<It even has [o] for the initial vowel in OBEY instead of schwa.>>

I've read about a short monophthongal allophone [o] being used in unstressed syllables in old-fashioned RP, for example "November" [no"vEmb@], versus modern RP [n@U"vEmb@].

<<Little wonder it sounds stilted and artificial!>>

Definitely. ;-)

>>That's amazing! Maintaining all 5 of the phonemes [a:], [{], [A:], [A@], [Q] would be an intriguing prospect. (I think I could mostly pull it off, except I'm not sure if I could clearly distinguish [A@] from [A:].) I wonder if this theater dialect also maintained the "horse-hoarse" distinction with [O:] and [O@], like old-fashioned RP.<<

My dialect at least has distinct [E{] (conservatively can be a high [{]), [a], and [Q] (progressively can be [A]), and furthermore can contrast [a:] and [a@] in the minimal pair "lot of" [L\a@] and "la" (as in the note) [L\a:] (note that this does not correspond to a single phoneme difference, though, as "lot of" is really /L\at@(v)/ while "la" is just /L\a/). Thus it gets close to having such a fine degree of distinguishing low vowels, albeit with NCVS-shifted vowels.

Yes you are write about the absurdly numerous panoply of vowels. I recently ordered the book on Amazon.com. It comes with cassette tapes. In the ah-shwa of "spa" and aw-shwa of "spore", the shwa sounds to me like an elegant r even in the "non-rhotic" recording (there is one of each). So too with the other uses of shwa in diphthongs.

It's true that the proposed accent is basically a "derhoticized" rhotic accent; aside from simple [@], which merges with [@`], all of the distinctions of a rhotic accent would be preserved (like "law-lore" and "spa-spar"). I can see how this could have lent the accent an ambiguous "mid-Atlantic" aspect.

<<That's amazing! Maintaining all 5 of the phonemes [a:], [{], [A:], [A@], [Q] would be an intriguing prospect. (I think I could mostly pull it off, except I'm not sure if I could clearly distinguish [A@] from [A:].)>>

Lazar,

What do you think about my international accent proposal? My proposal is similarly to the above, except that it uses /Ar/ rather than /A@/ for "car", while using /a/ for "bath", /{/ for "trap", /A/ for "father" and /Q/ for "lot".

In my proposed accent, /Q:/ in "cloth", "lost" etc. is distinct from both the /O:/ in "saw" and the /Q/ in "lot".

<<What do you think about my international accent proposal? My proposal is similarly to the above, except that it uses /Ar/ rather than /A@/ for "car", while using /a/ for "bath", /{/ for "trap", /A/ for "father" and /Q/ for "lot".

In my proposed accent, /Q:/ in "cloth", "lost" etc. is distinct from both the /O:/ in "saw" and the /Q/ in "lot".>>

Is your accent MARY-MERRY-MARRY merged? Can /t/ be realized as [4]?

Very interesting, though Canepari's document has some messy transcriptions. I took a look at Speak With Distinction today, but I don't have access to the tapes. Does anyone know any movies, etc. that use this system?

<<What do you think about my international accent proposal? My proposal is similarly to the above, except that it uses /Ar/ rather than /A@/ for "car", while using /a/ for "bath", /{/ for "trap", /A/ for "father" and /Q/ for "lot".>>

Yeah, it would sound very similar to the "Speak with Distinction" accent. Being rhotic with the vowel inventory you specify, I think it would still have an ambiguous "mid-Atlantic" feel.

<<In my proposed accent, /Q:/ in "cloth", "lost" etc. is distinct from both the /O:/ in "saw" and the /Q/ in "lot".>>

Wow - that's really pushing the phonemic distinctions to the max. ;-) My perception, at least, is that a /Q/-/Q:/ distinction might be hard to maintain for many speakers.

I've noticed that the RP "cot" vowel [Q] does sound a little different from my merged "cot-caught" phoneme, which is very open and could be transcribed as [Q:]. Based on this, I suppose I could at least attempt to manufacture a [Q]-[Q:] distinction.

<<Is your accent MARY-MERRY-MARRY merged? Can /t/ be realized as [4]?>>

The details of the accent are not completed yet, but my proposed accent maintains the Mary-merry-marry contrast and does not merge them. Whether or not /t/ can be realized as [4] has not been decided yet.