Re: THEORY: [i:]=[ij]? (was Re: Pronouncing "Boreanesia")

Adrian Morgan wrote:

>Kristian Jensen wrote:
>
>> Its true that for all practical purposes, [j] and [w] are equivalent to
>> [i] and [u] respectively. But it is still possible to glide from say [i]
>> to [j]. Its a matter of a slight difference in aperture.
>
>Y'know, I'm still really confused about [u]/[U].
I hope you mean phonemic /u/ and /U/ of English, cuz that's what I'll
discuss below. Otherwise, phonetic [u] resembles [w] (which I'm sure
won't cause any confusion). [U] is then a mid-centralized (laxed) version
of [u].

>1. The vowel in moon/you/true/do bears no relation whatsoever with the
>   [w] in water/well/wonder.
In the Australian dialect that I am familiar with (Brisbane), there seems
to be a shift of some sort such that the semivowel element of long rounded
vowels (/u/ and /o/) gets fronted while maintaining the rounding. So /u/
and /o/ get rendered as [u-y] and [o-y] respectively (compared with
American [uw] and [ow]). For instance, words like "no/know" get rendered
as [no-y]. So obviously, the vowels in moon/you/true/do does not resemble
[w] very well.

>2. The vowel in good/book/wool/woman is similar to [w] but a little
>   wider.
In Brisbane, /U/ is articulated much more closed than in the US.
Phonetically, American /U/ is more mid-centralized (laxed) and less
rounded compared to Australian /U/. In fact, it seems to me that
Australian /U/ is quite the opposite of American /U/ -- more closed
and more rounded. Indeed, its articulation is quite a lot like [u].
Obviously, this makes Australian /U/ much closer to /w/ than
Australian /u/. This does not mean that Australian /U/ is tense and
long like /u/ however. Although Australian /U/ is more closed than
American /U/, it is by no means long like /u/. It functions just like
the /U/ found in other dialects of English.

>3. Some differences between the vowels in (1) and (2) are that the jaw
>   and tongue are lower in the latter. The sounds are _very_ different,
>   the latter being harsher, the former more 'musical'.
I think more precisely, the tongue is more *retracted* in the latter.
This is because, as I said, Australian /u/ is fronted.

>4. The vowel in school/cool/fool/tool is very close to [w].
This is the interesting thing about Australian /u/. There seems to be a
constraint against the fronting feature before /l/. This is perhaps
explained by the fact that /l/ is quite strongly velarized so it, in a
sense, swallows the fronting feature.

>5. The main difference between (2) and (4) is that the latter is tighter.
Obviously! Long vowels in English are more tense than short vowels. The
vowel involved in (2) is /U/ which is phonemically short -- hence laxed.
The vowel involved in (4) is /u/ which is phonemically long -- hence
tensed. Actually, its difficult to discuss what the "main difference" is
between these two vowels because English is one of those languages where
tenseness coincides with length, so length may just as well be the "main
difference".

>6. I know that my _book_ is not [bok], because if it was then my _could_
>   would sound like an Irish pronunciation of _code_, which it certainly
>   doesn't.
Unfortunately, I don't know Irish at all that well. In any case, "could"
and "code" involves two different vowel phonemes. The vowel in "could" is
/U/ -- short and laxed. In "code", it is /o/ -- a long vowel.

>> In cases where a semivowel is next to a vowel with an identical place
>> of articulation (like "yiddish", "ying", "woo"), the semivowels can
>> become a bit more closed.
>
>The first two examples are [jI] not [ji], no?
Eeeh gads! "Ying" is actually a terrible example 'cuz it involves /I/ not
/i/. "Yiddish" is /ji/ though.

>The third I just don't get. I'm quite certain I've never heard _anyone_
>pronounce "woo" such that the {w} even remotely resembles the {oo}.
Assuming that your Australian English dialect is not that different from
that I know from Brisbane, then it should be obvious. "Woo" which is
phonemically /wu/, would in Brisbane be rendered as [wu-y]. Once again,
the /u/ sound is fronted in Australian English, and front-U's don't resemble
/w/ that well.

-kristian- 8)