Re: question on vowel tensing, fronting, backing, ect.

Eric Christopherson wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
>> IML, "bang", "ban", and "bane" are three separate vowels.   Well,
>> the first
>> two are similar, but they feel different when I say them; I think
>> it's just
>> the degree of diphthongalization.  Before [N], /&/ is highly
>> diphthongalized
>> via an offglide, to something like [&j], while before [n], it's
>> only barely
>> so, practically a pure [&].
>
> They are three separate vowels/diphthongs for me too (I speak a
> southern Wisconsin variety). I've often wondered of the exact
> characterization of /&N/; I think it might be (as you said) [&iN],
> but sometimes I wonder if it's not a monophthong like [eN] (but it's
> definitely not [eiN]). I'm leaning toward [&i].
Incidentally, and perhaps strangely, and possibly coincidentally, I have
[&i] in "bang" (etc), which means it has the same vowel as that of
"bane" for me. "Ban" is, however, [b&:n]. It seems to me that that's
normal at least amongst people of my age and younger in Australia (or at
least, Melbourne), but I've never seen it discussed in literature on the
topic. Which strikes me as strange because I have read a lot of stuff
about /&/ lengthening (the BAD-LAD split, not the TRAP-BATH split) in
AusE before (amongst other) /n m g/, which typically also mention that
the vowel remains short or is unaffected before /N/.

But this isn't tensing or anything as happens in the US; my guess is
it's just that the /N/ is less velar and more palatal than is usual for
/k g/ in AusE in this particular context at least, and some of that
palatalisation has crept into the vowel. And it's entirely possible that
I *do* pronounce it is [b&N], it's just that this sort of thing makes it
sound like [b&iN] to me, even though it's not.

No other vowel is phonemically altered by /N/; whether or not
phonetically /I/ is closer before /N/ is another matter, and one my ears
aren't the best tool for.

--
Tristan.