Re: Another Daniels screwup [was: Re: Claims [was: Re: Drifting phonemes [was: Re: The AmE 'o' sound]]]

From: Bob Cunningham (exw6sxq_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 11/15/04 

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:53:12 GMT

On 14 Nov 2004 17:42:58 -0800, k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com
(Andrew Usher) said:

> Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<8n3cp01q8tt496iaq9hl7urarommev2dv4@4ax.com>...
 
> > > "Monophthongal" is not relevant.
 
> > Yes, it is. In order to say that [a] and [&] are in
> > different phonemes (from my listening standpoint), I would
> > have to be able to distinguish the two when spoken
> > monophthongally.
 
> If [a] is supposed to be a front vowel, I don't think there is a
> phonemic difference.

My understanding is that a traditional Bostonian accent has
"cart/cat" pronounced [kat]/[k&t]. To me that pair
demonstrates contrastive distribution and shows that [a] and
[&] are in different phonemes in that dialect.

> This difficulty is, I think, caused by the fact
> that the IPA notation for the low vowels is just wrong.

I don't see how you can say that any symbol assignment is
wrong. There is a low front region in the vowel
quadrilateral and IPA should be free to call that region
anything they want to call it, so long as they define it and
apply it consistently. In a similar way there is a region
of the vowel quadrilateral that's between open-mid and open
and IPA has chosen to call that region [&]. If there is no
reason to doubt that a user of IPA means open front when he
or she writes [a] and semi-open front when he or she writes
[a], how can you say it's wrong?

I can call the open front vowel [q] and the open central
vowel [z], as long as I accompany the usages with
definitions.

I suspect what you really have in mind is that American
linguists tend to use [a] for an open central vowel or for a
region spanning open central and open back (see Ladusaw and
Pullum _Phonetic Symbol Guide_ 1999 Edition page 298), but
that doesn't mean IPA can't use it for something else or
that IPA are wrong when they use it for something else.
 
> If [&] is the front vowel (close enough), then [a] should be the
> central vowel in my (CINC) 'hot', and then [A] the back vowel in your
> 'hot'. This has the advantage that indeed [A.] (= British 'hot') would
> simply be a rounded version of [A], as it is supposed to be.
 
"Supposed to be" is open to question. According to the IPA
specification [A.] is simply a rounded [A], but Ladefoged,
in his _A Course in Phonetics Third Edition_ says that
turned script "a" (ASCII [A.]) is a lax partner of the tense
script "a" (ASCII IPA [A]). Specifically, Ladefoged says

   British English [has] the tense vowel [A] as in
   "calm, car card" in both open and closed syllables,
   and they also have a lax vowel [A.] as in "cod,
   common, con" [...] which occurs only in closed
   syllables.

> In American English [A.:] is represented /O/, because we have a
> different distribution of back vowels. Failure to appreciate this also
> causes people to represent the 'horse/hoarse' vowel /Or/, where it
> clearly should be /or/ for American rhotic dialects, at least.

I don't think that's right. I've shown with formant
analysis that one AUE poster has [or] while I have [Or], and
we're both Americans and rhotic.
 
> > It also has [&j], which doesn't make sense, since [j] is a
> > consonant (or semivowel) in ASCII IPA. For example, the
> > word "yes" in ASCII IPA is [jEs].
 
> Yes, the normal rule is that semivowels only exist before vowels.
  
> > The conventional transcription of the diphthongs in "high"
> > and "how" are [aI] and [aU], but I think [ai] and [au] come
> > closer to my pronunciations. I've never seen [&] used in
> > transcriptions of those diphthongs.
 
> I would also use [ai], [au]; [a] being the central vowel, of course.
 
Again, I question your use of "of course". [a] is a central
vowel in some American schemes, but it's a front vowel in
IPA.

Relevant Pages