Re: THEORY: Laxness?

Tristan Alexander McLeay wrote:

> Why is [I] lax and [i] tense, [E] lax and [e] tense?
Just speculating, based on several minutes' introspection :-), but I suspect
it might have to do with the tenseness/laxness of the tongue muscles. That
might also correlate with the very slight lowering of the jaw in the lax
vowels, though it's perfectly possible to produce a lax vowel without moving
the jaw (e.g. through clenched teeth). I wonder what Ladefoged might have to
say on this-- he was famous for sticking electrodes in his tongue to measure
muscular energy....

(Perhaps some slight difference in tongue-root too?)

The synonymous terms "open/close" do seem to refer to relative proximity of
the tongue to the palate.
(snips)
>
[In speech]... They alternate with consonants,
> which mostly involve closures towards the top of the mouth, and draw
> the tongue upwards (the main exceptions to this are pharyngeals, which
> draw the tongue down, bilabials, which do not involve the tongue, and
> possibly uvulars---I'm not quite sure). So wouldn't undershoot
> encourage [i] and [e] in comparison to [I] and [E], which are further
> away from where the tongue is, and where it's going to?
Could be true in those cases where there is transition from one POA to
another (velar > alv e.g.), but not in cases like "deed, did" or "Beeb "(the
BBC), bib" where the only difference is the vowel.