Re: Pronouncing new sounds in new languages
From: | Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...> |
Date: | Wednesday, May 2, 2001, 20:19 |
At 2:10 pm -0400 2/5/01, David Peterson wrote:
>In a message dated 5/2/01 4:51:30 AM, Daniel44@BTINTERNET.COM writes:
>
><< My French is not perfect, but I think the 'y' sound in Uusisuom is very
>
>similar to the 'u' sound in the word 'lune'. I also realised yesterday that
>
>the 'u' sound in Uusisuom is very similar to the 'u' in the Italian word
>
>'pUnto'. In short, the 'u' sound is shorter and more 'tense' than the 'y'. >>
>
> I can't speak for the Italian,
High, back, rounded, tense
>but the "u" in "lune" is [y], a high,
>front, rounded tense vowel, whereas /U/ is a high, back, unrounded lax vowel.
Correct - the only things French _u_ in _lune_ [y] & English _oo_ in _book_
[U] have in common is that they are both high & rounded (as are [Y], [}]
and [u]) - but there the similarity definitely stops.
> So...what do you mean by more the "u" being "more tense" than the "y"?
..or shorter, for that matter. Especially as the French sound is short!
>I
>was fine when I thought of the "y" as the orthographical /y/ in Russian...
..which is similar to the Welsh "clear y" :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
At 10:54 am -0700 2/5/01, Frank George Valoczy wrote:
>Okay, I think this discussion can now end based on what I just read:
I guess it should end since we seem to have got no forwarder ever since the
discussion began.
[snip]
>Secondarily: the point of an auxlang as I understand it is to make it as
>absolutely simple as possible, not to make sounds which will likely be
>difficult for many people to learn...
Yes, Schleyer even went as far as getting rid of /r/ for the sake of
children, old people & all the Chinese ;)
(It was restored in De Jong's reform of Volapük)
>Anyway, I will say no more on this subject.
Wise words - I think I'd better follow Frank's example. Tacebo.
Ray.
=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
[J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================