/E~/ (was: Re: Kyrgyz was Re: Zetowvu / Ezotwuv (new conlang))

Christophe wrote:

> I wouldn't know. But "in" is *definitely* [E~] and doesn't go any lower than
> that (anything lower sounds like /a~/ to me).
You know what I think it is? I think it's the Swedish
vowels that are a bit screwed up. I can assure you that
you wouldn't complain about my pronunciation if you heard
it (well, perhaps you would, but my vowels wouldn't make
you throw up). My French-speaking cousins don't.

The Italian |e| in IPA is /E/, but to me it sounds more
like something in between /E/ and /&/. Swedish /E/ as
in |älg| is definitely more close than Italian. And the
English /E/ in |pet| is most often written /e/ in IPA,
but it's much more close to Sw. /E/ than Sw. /e/.

If I pronounce French /E~/ without nasalization, it sounds
just like Italian /E/ (like in |bellezza|).

So, in conclusion, I think the IPA system is screwing
us over. Swedish /E/ (or /&/) ain't the same as French
/E~/. I pronounce it correctly, but the IPA is fooling me.

Thanks for the input. And thanks to John Cowan for the
comments on /E/ and /&/. That made it a bit clearer in
my head. (If I don't make much sense, I think John's post
might make much more sense.)

If my explanation above seems wrong, please tell me, and
I won't utter another word of French for the rest of my life.
I wouldn't wanna make a mockery of the French we've all learned
to love.

Daniel Andreasson

Reply