Re: THEORY: NATLANGS: Phonology and Phonetics: Tetraphthongs, Triphthongs, Diphthongs

Tristan Alexander McLeay wrote:
> On 26/05/06, Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:
>
>> [QUESTIONS 1]
>>
>> Questions;
>>
>> Aren't most diphthongs either
>> pre-palatalizations (rising diphthong with a [i] or [j] on-glide), or
>> pre-labializations (rising dipththong with a [u] or [w] on-glide), or
I think you're probably right saying 'most'. Indeed, if they actually
begin with [w] or [j] some people IIRC question whether they are
diphthongs at all, and not just CV combos. It depends IMO on the
phonotactics of the language. If [j] and/or [w] occur _only_ and as
allophones of /i/ and /u/ then we should, I think, call them diphthongs.

But the first element of the Romanian rising diphthongs |ea| and |oa|
are said to start from a lower position in the mouth than [i] and [u]
respectively; i.e. |ea| is said to begin with the tongue more or less in
the position of [e] and then to move to the syllabic nucleus [a];
similarly from [o] to [a] with |oa|.

>> post-palatalizations (falling diphthong with a [i] or [j] off-glide), or
>> post-labializations (falling diphthong with a [u] or [w] off-glide)?
>>
>> What are some examples of level diphthongs?  What languages are they in?
>>
>> What are some examples of diphthongs in which neither vowel is [i] or [u]
>> (or [j] or [u])?
As I have understood it, a diphthong is a vowel where there is a single
and perceptual change in quality during its utterance. Where the second
element is _actually_ a [j] or [w] and there is no perceptual change in
the vowel, we do not have a diphthong (in the usual sense of the term).
For example, the final sound in French _soleil_ [solEj] is not treated
as a diphthong, but as a vowel + [j].

The _convention_ of writing standard English diphthongs as /aj/, /aw/
etc is, as I've understood it, merely an 'ASCIIfication' of those
representation where the second element is denoted by a [i] or [u] with
the small inverted breve beneath it. Those diphthongs are also often
denoted as [ai] and [au] or as [aI] and [aU]. In normal speech the
tongue rarely, if ever, reaches that second position. For example,
English /aj/ is often realized (by those who actually use a diphthong)
as [aI] or [ae], with the second element being non-syllabic.

But, OK - Are there falling diphthongs where the tongue is not moving
towards [i] or [u]? Well, yes.

The second element in German |eu| tends towards [y], at least in many
dialects; this, I guess, could be considered a variant of the more
common -] diphthongs in which the lips stayed rounded, so could be
considered a variant of 'post-palatalization' (tho I wouldn't use the
term myself).

But what north Walian pronunciation of |au| and |eu| is neither
'post-palatalization' nor 'post-labialization'; in these diphthongs the
vowel begins as either [a] or [@], respectively, and the tongue moves
towards the _central_ high unrounded [1]. I am sure there must be
examples from other languages where the seconded element tends towards
high central vowels, whether rounded or unrounded.

And, as you so rightly say, in non-rhotic varieties English you do get
falling diphthongs in which the tongue moves towards [@]. My
pronunciation of 'beer' and 'sure' have just such diphthongs [bI@] and
[SU@], where [@] is non-syllabic. In the neck of the woods (SE England),
many have simply [O:] where I have [U@], but 'beer' is always diphthongal.

Diphthongs tending towards [@] were common also in English dialects
where standard English has [ei] and [ou]/[@u]. For example, in the old
Sussex dialect 'gate' and 'goat' were pronounced [ge@t] and [go@t] (with
falling diphthongs.

As for 'level', I guess you mean something like beginning with [e] and
finishing up with [o]? I'm sure some Welsh realizations of |ew| do just
that.

>>(I guess the non-rhotic dialects of English have a
>> lot of
>> falling diphtghongs with a center-mid [@] off-glide -- if I wrote that
>> right.)
Yes, you did (apart from a typo  :)

[snip]
>
> As you say, there's the centring diphthongs. AuE and Latin have a
> diphthong like [Ae] or [ae]; Latin has [oe]
Did it? We simply cannot tell the *exact* way the 'average' Roman
pronounced things. I doubt very much that |ae| was significantly
different from standard English -igh in _nigh_. In early Latin we find
spellings with both AI and AE; also Greek AI was regularly Latinized as
  AE, and Greek OI as Latin OE.

Whether the early Romans wrote AI or AE, I'm quite sure they meant
basically the same thing: a diphthong where the nucleus is [a] and the
tongue moves towards [i]. In practice it is likely to realized as [ae]
or [aI].

But what became the Classical Latin spelling may have been partly
influenced by the fact that during the Classical period the sounds in
question were becoming monophthongs. As I wrote not so long ago, the
inscriptional evidence (inter alia) suggest that in popular speech AE
was pronounced [E:] in unstressed syllables in the 1st century BCE and
that it became pronounced also as [E:] in stressed syllables during the
1st century CE. Similarly the much rarer OE just became plain [e:].

> (and the AusE diphthong I
> think is [oi] has been called [oe] by others).
Yes - but see above.
===================================

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Reply