Re: Vowels?
| From: | Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, January 24, 2002, 21:55 |
|---|
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 20:21:45 +0100, Christophe Grandsire
<christophe.grandsire@...> wrote:
>En réponse à Chris Palmer <cecibean@...>:
>
>> allophones
>> of /r/ (spelled {r}) are vowels. However, I said [R]--a *phonetic*
>> transcription--is a vowel, because it is.
>
>No it's not. In "writer", the first and last sounds are acoustically
>identical, with the difference that one IS USED as a consonant and the
>second one as a vowel. Yes, there may be a little difference in length,
>but not of place of articulation or position of the tongue.
>
>> The line I'm drawing is one of phonetic (articulatory), not phonemic.
>> Phonetically, the line is relatively clear, I repeat.
Some quotations from Pike's Phonemics may be relevent here;
"One of the most important distinctions in sound types is that between
sounds which have the air escaping from the mouth over the center of the
tongue but with no strong local friction in the mouth (even though friction
may at times occur elsewhere during the sounds) and those sounds which do
not. The former sounds, such as [o], [e], [u], [w], and [r] maybe called
conveniently CENTRAL RESONANT ORALS, or VOCOIDS ...."
(pp. 4-5)
"The value of utilizing the term 'vocoid' instead of 'vowel' here is the
following: Certain sounds such as [i], [u], [u"], [r], and [h] may in some
languages occur in structural positions in sequences of sounds in the
syllable or word, which are also occupied by sounds such as [t], [s], and
[l]. In other languages the [i], [u], and so on, may occur in structural
positions which are also occupied by [a], [o], [e]. In the first instance,
[i], [u], [u"], [r], [h] are functioning as consonants. In the second
instance, they are functioning as vowels. Since the sounds themselves, as
such may be the same in each of the two instances, it is advantageous to
utilize the term _vocoid_ to represent the sounds in their phonetic
character without regard to their distribution in sequences or their usage
as consonants or vowels ...
"The inconsistency which would result from using the terms 'vowel' and
'consonant' in two ways, one phonetic and the other phonemic, can be seen
in the following statement: 'In Language A there are vowels and consonants
[phonemic use of the terms]. Some of the vowels [phonetic use of the term]
are vowels [phonemic use] and some of the vowels [phonetic use] are
consonants [phonemic use]. Some of the consonants [phonetic use] are
consonants [phonemic use] and some of the consonants [phonetic use] are
vowels [phonemic use].' ...."
(pp.13-14)
Jeff
>It's not. Or else syllabic consonants just couldn't exist. The simple fact
>that it's possible to use what you normally call consonants as syllable
>peaks is just a proof that articulatorily speaking, all sounds pertain to
>a continuum which you CANNOT cut in well defined sections (at least as
>long as you talk about pulmonic sounds, the ones that are pronounced with
>a normal stream of voice), simply because those definitions don't exist.
>If all texts I've read about phonetics all state that you can't strictly
>separate vowels from consonants, that this separation is just ad hoc for
>each language, and that everything belongs to a continuum, there must be a
>reason for it. All phoneticians are not stupid.
>
>Just a thing about "clear lines": nothing is ever obvious. What you take
for
>granted may not be so for somebody else. Instead of dismissing the other's
>opinion, think a little about it and listen to the arguments given. Things
you
>think are obvious may well not be. We're taught at school that consonants
and
>vowels are very different and that a clear line can be cut in between, and
>that's why we consider that obvious. Other people may have other opinions
on
>the matter, and good arguments to prove this view wrong. Don't dismiss them
>because "it's obvious". That's the worst argument you can give.
>
>So I'll repeat once again: the classification between consonants and
vowels is
>just a practical one which accounts for most frequent use as syllabic peak
or
>not (more open sounds have a bigger probability to be used as syllabic
peaks
>than less open ones. Yet it's just a probability, not a strict rule.
Syllabic
>consonants are quite frequent in the world - one third of languages in the
>world use them, and among them, 5% use stops. Not much, but still more than
>zero, and in complete contradiction with the existance of a strict limit
>between consonants and vowels). Phonetically speaking, that's all it is.
>Acoustically we have a continuum, and differences in degree, rather than
strict
>limits.
>
>The human tendency has the bad tendency to take labels as strict
definitions.
>The first thing if you want to have an unbiased approach to things is to
get