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

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].

1. The vowel in moon/you/true/do bears no relation whatsoever with the
   [w] in water/well/wonder.
2. The vowel in good/book/wool/woman is similar to [w] but a little
   wider.
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'.
4. The vowel in school/cool/fool/tool is very close to [w].
5. The main difference between (2) and (4) is that the latter is tighter.
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.

> 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? 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}.

--
web.       | Here and there I like to preserve a few islands of sanity
netyp.com/ | within the vast sea of absurdity which is my mind.
member/    | After all, you can't survive as an eight foot tall
dragon     | flesh eating dragon if you've got no concept of reality.