--- In conlang@y..., Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@F...> wrote:
> > Well, /e/ is tense and thus requires more articulation than the lax
> > /E/.
>
> Does it? In my opinion it's rather the contrary: you need to open more your
> mouth to make [E] than to make [e]. And that's more articulation.
You have to raise your tongue higher to pronounce /e/. That's more
articulation. ;-)
> At least,
> that's my experience. Having a native language that lacks real lax vowels like
> [I] or [U], I can tell you by experience that there is nothing really "lax" in
> them. In my experience, [I] needs as much energy to pronounce as [i]. the
> position of the mouth is a bit different, but pronouncing them needs the same
> amount of energy. The only vowel which is really "easier" to pronounce is the
> real schwa [@].
Well, lax vowels are usually characterized by being closer to the
schwa than the tense ones. They require less deviation from the
neutral schwa position.
> > And then, of course, there's English. It has /E/ as a phoneme, but
> > /e/ only in the diphthong /eI/.
>
> Which more and more lacks the last part :)) .
Irish accent has [e:] for /eI/, but pretty much all Americans I've met
say a distinct [eI] -- which is especially noticeable when they try to
speak a foreign language. Vooley-voo kooshey...? ;-)
> > Or have a look at French: |e| is /E/ by default in closed syllables
> > (e.g. |tresse| /trEs/ or |robinet| /rObinE/),
>
> Oops! The second one was never ever pronounced that way. [robinE] is an old
> pronunciation that died more then one century ago
Then I wonder why it's taught at our schools.
> > An accent aigu is
> > needed to elevate it into the privileged status of /e/!
>
> Or an accent grave to è! Or an accent circonflexe ê! or |ai|, or |ei|!
These are all /E/ in my experience. "Experience" includes a
francophonic grandmother and a native-speaker highschool teacher.
> Is it? What's the difference between "most basic" and "purest"?
What's the difference between "primitive" and "elite"?
> En réponse à jesse stephen bangs <jaspax@U...>:
>
> > French (and English) can *not* be used as examples of normal
> > orthography!
I heartily agree. How could any language that writes /waso/ and
/2:/ as |oiseaux| and |oeufs| be considered normal? ;-)
-- Christian Thalmann