Strange symbol for schwa sound in linking

svetlana14

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2013
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Ukraine
Current Location
Ukraine
Dear All,

Could you please have a look at the photo attached ad explain to me what the symbol is for the schwa sound (marked) the presenter has used. It does resembes "UV". He used it while explaining the linking in would+have, could+have. Thank you.
 

Attachments

  • Изображение[1].jpg
    Изображение[1].jpg
    23 KB · Views: 15

Tdol

Editor, UsingEnglish.com
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
The symbol above the letter o in the word of does resemble a conventional schwa. I wonder whether UV stands for unvoiced, though I think it should represent the fact that it is not emphasised.
 

svetlana14

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2013
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Ukraine
Current Location
Ukraine
Thank you. Please clarify why in your view the presenter has used UV (at least it resembles UV in his handwriting) for the case when the preposition "of" is realised as the weak form and schwa is pronounced. I marked his handwriting. He applied the same symbol UV for the case when should, would and could are used with have and the linking is used. Thanks a lot.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I think uv is meant to represent the pronunciation of have and of when they're in a weak form. E.g. coulduv, woulduv, etc.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
If the symbol above the o is a schwa, it's upside down and back to front!
 

probus

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Member Type
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
I agree, jutfrank. If the intent is to describe the everyday pronunciation of would've should've etc. why is an ordinary schwa incorrect or insufficient? What distinction is being drawn?
 
Top