Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: E and e (was: A break in the evils of English (or, Sturnan is beautiful))

From:Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>
Date:Monday, April 29, 2002, 19:08
At 5:33 pm +0000 28/4/02, Andreas Johansson wrote:
[snip]
> >Ok, that was joke, but despite my not taking linguistic lessons there seems >to be something strange going on here. I am of the impression that that >'lax' vowels differ from their 'tense' versions by being closer to [@]/[8] -
Spot on!
>so [I] is what you get if you start at [i] and go a bit towards schwa.
Not necessarily - [I] can be tense if it pronounced strictly on the 'outer edge' of the vocalic quadrilateral between cardinal vowels [e] and [E]; but the German & English [I] is not merely between these two, but also, as you say, more towards the central vowels. it is retracted or 'lax' compared to [i:].
>But >if this is true, both [e] are [E] tense, because they're both cardinals >right out at the edge of the vowel space, and considering, for phonemical >purposes,
Absolutely, if they are cardinal vowels as French and Italian /E/ and /e/ are.
> [E] as the lax version of [e] would indeed be a pretty weird >idiosyncracy.
Yet it happens in German and English! We have to distinguish between narrow, i.e. phonemic transcription, and broad or (vaguely) phonemic transcription. The [E] of German & French is not the cardinal vowel; it is more retracted and lax. It is the lax or 'short' counterpart of German [e:] or standard English [eI] (often still [e:] in many Brit dialects).
>Or is this idiosyncracy somehow common enough to be "normal"?
IMO no - to imply that it is normal is being anglocentric, as Christophe said.
>Or am I simply misunderstanding the lax~tense distinction?
No. The trouble is that phonetic & phonemic transcritions are getting confused. It would be more correct _phonemically_ to show the German pairs, e.g. as: /i:/ ~ /i/ /e:/ ~ /e/ In English there is contoversy over whether we have: /ij/ ~ /i/ /ej/ ~ /e/ _or_ /i/ ~ /I/ /e/ ~ /E/ But versions that give /eI/ ~ /E/ are, to my mind, perverse and confounding phonemic transcription with phonetic notation [eI] ~ [E] in which, [E] means "a sound close to, but slightly retracted from, cardinal vowel [E]". Ray. ====================== XRICTOC ANECTH ======================

Replies

Tristan <zsau@...>
Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>