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

Kristian Jensen wrote, quoting myself:

> >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.
Actually I meant the mapping of phonetic symbols to a particular group of
sounds.

> Otherwise, phonetic [u] resembles [w] (which I'm sure won't cause any
> confusion). [U] is then a mid-centralized (laxed) version of [u].
Your post leaves me as confused as ever. Sorry. Three sounds:

(1) The sound in school/cool/fool/tool is essentially [w]. Therefore, if
    I take your description literally, it is [u].

(2) The sound in could/book/wool/woman/ is similar to (1) and [w], but
    looser. Some dialects in Britain (in rural England I think) are
    caracaturised for their use of (AFAICT) this sound in words like
    _mud_. Does that make it clear?

(3) The sound in moon/you/true/do/universe/suitcase is completely
    different in every respect from (1), (2) and [w]. AFAICT it is
    frequent in all dialects that I know of, including British, American
    and Australian dialects. (I don't listen to American dialects
    regularly.)

> In the Australian dialect that I am familiar with (Brisbane), there
Liable to confuse me, because Brisbane's about as far from here as you
can get, and Queenslanders have a reputation for speaking a little
differently from the rest of the country, although I wouldn't be able to
recite details (I have local friends who have lived some years in
Queensland, and if I ask about accent differences I might be able to get
some info, if that would interest anyone).

> 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].
I've heard visiting Americans claim that we tend to say 'noi' for 'no',
but that's obviously just an overactive imagination on their part :-)
although I'm willing to believe a Queenslander might say anything. Sounds
like something a Queenslander might do :-) Best to ignore any such
phenomena, though, when talking to a South Australian like me. Otherwise
I'll only be confused.

I'm quite certain my speech does not contain [o], although my singing
voice does. When I sing, no/know are [no:]. When I speak, they contain a
diphthong that begins with a neutralish vowel (perhaps [rounded-V]?) and
ends with vowel #3 in my list above.

> So obviously, the vowels in moon/you/true/do does not resemble
> [w] very well.
Not even remotely. The vowel in those words is a very musical sound (as
is [o]). An elongated [w] is not. It's completely different.

> >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.
Doesn't help me a lot, because I can't picture an American voice (nor a
Queenslander, for that matter). What are the phonetic symbols for the
phonemes you've mentioned? Also, what do you mean by 'quite the opposite
of'?

I guess I could do some research - email someone in the speech pathology
department at the university and ask what the IPA is for the vowels in
the words we've mentioned (I don't believe there are any phonetics
experts in the language dept). Last time I sent an email that way I
didn't get a response, but I may have more luck with a very specific
question like that.

> >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'.
[Recall that (1) and (2) in my original post correspond to (3) and (2) in
this one.]

> I think more precisely, the tongue is more *retracted* in the latter.
I really don't know about this at all. The back of the tongue is
definately higher in the former _moon_, and the tongue is definately more
relaxed in the latter _could_. Doesn't that make the former 'retracted'
(i.e. the back of the tongue moves up to make way for the retraction)?

> >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.
I must ask my friends how these words are pronounced in Brisbane, whether
it's more like the New South Wales pronunciation or the South Australian
one.

In NSW/Victoria, these words use the same vowel as in _moon_. Therefore
the sound is phonemically equivalent to that vowel in Australian speech.
However, *phonetically* it is a relative of the vowel in _could_.

> >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_ is [w] followed by the vowel in _moon_.

Not in the least obvious.

--
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.