Re: tSat: Re: 'tEst 'pli:z ig'nOr\

On 01/02/07, Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > > I can't get over the /i/ in "ignore".  Makes me think Ignor is the
> > > > negated version of Igor...
> > > > IML and IME, "ignore" has an /I/.
> > >
> Tristan replied:
> > > I'm not distinguishing between [i] and [I] as IME, when I hear [i] and
> > > [I] as different, the [I] sounds like either /e/ or /@/ (but the [i]
> > > sounds like a possible unusual /I/). If I don't pronounce "Igor" as
> > > /Aego:/, I pronounce it as /Iigo:/.
> >
> > Igor definitely starts with an EE sound, not an EYE sound.  Have you not
> > *seen* any Frankenstein movies? :)
>
> Since the topic was "i in its various forms", I suspect Tristan may have
> momentarily thought of "long i" vs. "short i", I.e. [aI] vs. [I]
All I know is I've heard "Igor" and "Ivan" pronounced with both "long
i" and "long e", and I heard the "long i" forms earlier than the "long
e" ones so they're my unthinking default in written form... I imagine
the nearest vowel in my speech to the Russian vowel is in fact "short
i". (The Russian word _ty_ ("you") is sometimes very close to how I
pronouce the name of the fourth letter of the (English) alphabet,
altho the Russian vowel usually strikes me as broader than I'd aim
for...)

> > And "ignore" just as definitely has a sound completely unlike any of EE,
> > EH,
> > or UH. :)
> >
> My take on T's "igno:" was that his "i" reflected the tendency ASUI in
> Aus.Eng. to pronounce the lax vowels (I,E,U and probably O in US usage)
That's quite right, except that /O/ isn't usually considered a lax
vowel in US/RP usage, but rather a tense vowel. By contrast, the RP
vowel /Q/ is equivalent to AusE /O/, and RP/US /O/ is AusE /o:/, so
the tendency does continue with those vowels.

> noticeably higher and less lax than "Standard Amer." is accustomed to. But
> then the question arises, how does he distinguish the EE sound* (as in
> "team") from the "short i"** as in "Tim"'; or "beat/bit" etc.?? Hence my
> wonderment too when he says of "Igor"-- "I pronounce it as /Iigo:/." That,
> I'd have to hear.
[Ii] is being used to represent a diphthong that starts from a lax
position and gets tenser... It's fairly self-explanatory, and not
hugely different from what's meant by [ij] or [@i] that others use.
However, it is noticeably diphthongalised, and that is the major
difference between "bead" [bIid] vs "beard" [bi:d] (with almost the
same quality as "bid" [bid]).

I've got a nice & nifty diagram of these (and my other) vowels if
anyone wants to see, that I made for my Advanced Phonetics subject
last semester.

--
Tristan.

Reply