Re: Three vowel systems (was: Brr)
|From:||T. A. McLeay <conlang@...>|
|Date:||Friday, August 3, 2007, 7:26|
John Vertical wrote:
>> Joseph Fatula wrote:
>>> T. A. McLeay wrote:
>>>> Do I read you right in claiming a vowel system comprised of /i: i I: I
>>>> 1: 1/? Is there an anadew for that?
>>> It contains those sounds, yes. I'm not sure whether to call the last
>>> vowel /1/ or /E/, it seems like it's somewhere in between those when I'm
>>> pronouncing it.
>>  and [E] aren't exactly nearby sounds unless you're using  to mean
>> something other than a high central unrounded vowel i.e. IPA [É¨].
>> "Somewhere in between" would be something like [@] or [I].
> IMHO  or [V] sound a bit like " a mix of [i\] and [E]", especially if the
> unrounding (lip spreding) is emphasized.
This is, I guess, a matter of opinion and the phonetics of your native
language; to me [V] is all but indistinguishable from [O], and 
sounds very similar to [M] and  (sic!). Neither sounds like [i\] or
[E], nor a cross of the two.
Hm. Interesting. I wonder what it actually sounds like.
But, this is still only an anadoab ("a natlang duzzit ormost as
bad"---if you can pardon a nonrhotic, nonlambdic inclusion in an
acronym). Any takers on [i: i I: I 1: 1]?
>>> Is this a very strange system? It seems like Hungarian
>>> has one about as complex.
>> I have never heard of a language that has all of /i: i I: I/; indeed, my
>> understanding is it's unheard of! Hungarian has a fairly boring system:
>> /i: i y: y e: E 2: 2 Q A: o: o u: u/, some dialects also having /e/ (and
>> all of /e: E e/ are quite low for those IPA symbols).
>> Icelandic has /i I/ with two allophones each: [i: I:] in open syllables,
>> [i I] in closed ones. But this is part of a regular/systematic process
>> and is clearly allophonic; it is, however, the closest I know.
> There are some African langs that have both ATR/RTR and short/long vowel
> distinctions, which results in /i i: I I:/. For one example, take Somali:
> 'Fcors an ATR [i] vs RTR [I] distinction is not exactly the same as a plain [i I]
> distinction, but I dout we're going to find anything better.