[o] vs. [oU] and [e] vs. [eI]

Mxsmanic wrote: <<I'm using Kirshenbaum's IPA transliteration. I don't know how close that is to SAMPA, and frankly, I don't care, as I spend my time using the real IPA, not crude ASCII approximations.

/eI/ and /oU/ aren't phonemes because they contain more than one symbol, for one thing. There's no difference between [e] and [eI] in English; you can represent the corresponding phoneme as /e/--the /I/ is redundant.

There are only three phonemic diphthongs in English, meaning that there are only three diphthongs that MUST be pronounced as diphthongs (and thus must be transcribed this way). When I transcribe them, I always put a non-syllabic diacritic under the second vowel to make it clear that they are two vowels pronounced as a single diphthong, and not two independent monophthongs (which would be the default assumption in IPA).>>

http://www.antimoon.com/forum/2004/5564-3.htm

What do you think? Do you think there's an absolute problem with representing the phonemes in ''cake'' and ''Coke'' as /eI/ and /oU/. I don't see any problem with it. But Mxsmanic appears to.

<<There are only three phonemic diphthongs in English, meaning that there are only three diphthongs that MUST be pronounced as diphthongs (and thus must be transcribed this way).>>

I'm assuming these would be the vowels in "toy", "tie" and "how" respectively. Anyway, there's no such thing as a "phonemic diphthong".

Yes, Mxsmanic went on to claim that the vowels in "toy", "tie" and "how" (not necessary respectively) were the "phonemic diphthongs".

Is there a problem in using "/eI/" and "/oU/"? On the contrary, "/e/" and "/o/" are more problematic for you risk haveing them misinterpreted as the vowels in "bed" and "caught" (or even "cot") respectively. Of course Mxs will chime in again with his "standard English" nonsense ... I don't buy it.

<<Is there a problem in using "/eI/" and "/oU/"? On the contrary, "/e/" and "/o/" are more problematic for you risk haveing them misinterpreted as the vowels in "bed" and "caught" (or even "cot") respectively.>>

I interpret them as phonemically monophthongal for my speech since that's how they show up in my dialect, but that certainly doesn't apply to all speakers.

<<Of course Mxs will chime in again with his "standard English" nonsense ... I don't buy it.>>

Few do.

>>Yes, Mxsmanic went on to claim that the vowels in "toy", "tie" and "how" (not necessary respectively) were the "phonemic diphthongs".

Is there a problem in using "/eI/" and "/oU/"? On the contrary, "/e/" and "/o/" are more problematic for you risk haveing them misinterpreted as the vowels in "bed" and "caught" (or even "cot") respectively. Of course Mxs will chime in again with his "standard English" nonsense ... I don't buy it.<<

Depending on whose English one is speaking of, that is. The matter here is that you are probably speaking of Australian English in practice, whereas Mxsmanic (and Kirk) was speaking of North American English in reality. The thing is that NAE and AusE have fundamentally different vowel systems across the board, which treat tenseness and length in very different manner. NAE treats vowel tenseness as the primary distinctive attribute of vowel phones here, whereas AusE treats vowel length or diphthongalization as the primary distinctive attribute of vowel phones. Likewise, vowel length in NAE is allophonic, whereas tenseness in AusE is allophonic. Consequentlly, one cannot make across-the-board statements about the roles of vowel tenseness and length which apply to be NAE and AusE.

In NAE, one can treat the primary distinctions as being between /E/ and /e/, and /O/ and /o/ for dialects without the cot-caught merger, with [eI] and [oU] being allophones of /e/ and /o/ which may be preferred or even obligatory in some NAE dialects (such as Lazar's and SpaceFlight's) and not used often or consistently in others (such as Kirk's and mine). One way or another, whether such diphthongization occurs or not is irrelevant to actually communicating distinctions between words in NAE dialects. For example, in my dialect, /e/ and /o/ are only consistently realized as [eI] and [oU] before other vowels, or word-finally in more formal speech (and for /o/ in some idiolects, where it may be often realized as highly diphthongal but also fronted word-finally), and where diphthongizing them in other positions sounds off but still perfectly understandable.

In my dialect, it's obligatory to realize /e/ and /o/ as [eI], [oU] (except before /l/, which I'll get to later). However, I think that for me, /e/ and /o/ still fall into a basic class of phonemic high tense monophthongs (/e/, /o/, /i/, /u/), as opposed to the phonemic diphthongs (/aI/, /OI/, /aU/). You should note that even my /u/, in a very narrow phonetic transcription, tends to be realized as [Uu] rather than a purely monphthongal [u]. Nonetheless, the issue of /l/-breaking seems to indicate that my /e/, /o/, /i/, and /u/ retain an essential monophthongal character.

When followed by /l/, the phonemic high tense monophthongs become centering diphthongs, which I perceive as monosyllabic:

fail - [fe@l]
foal - [fo@l]
feel - [fi@l]
fool - [fu@l]

However, when the phonemic diphthongs are followed by /l/, they break into two syllables for me:

file - ["faI.@l]
fowl - ["faU.@l]
foil - ["fOI.@l]

<<When followed by /l/, the phonemic high tense monophthongs become centering diphthongs, which I perceive as monosyllabic:

fail - [fe@l]
foal - [fo@l]
feel - [fi@l]
fool - [fu@l]

However, when the phonemic diphthongs are followed by /l/, they break into two syllables for me:

file - ["faI.@l]
fowl - ["faU.@l]
foil - ["fOI.@l]>>

I have the same pattern there as you, Lazar.

Just because my [eI] and [oU] never happen to contrast with [e] and [o] is no reason to leave out the second element of the diphthong in phonemic transcriptions of my speech.

cake - /keIk/
coke - /koUk/

What about those few of us who actually pronounce words like cake as /kek/ and coke as /kok/?

<<What about those few of us who actually pronounce words like cake as /kek/ and coke as /kok/?>>

Then it makes sense for you to represent them as monothongs.

<</eI/ and /oU/ aren't phonemes because they contain more than one symbol, for one thing.>>

What the heck's that supposed to mean? /aI/, /aU/ and /OI/ also contain more than one symbol.

>>What about those few of us who actually pronounce words like cake as /kek/ and coke as /kok/?<<

Exactly. Would one really suggest that those who have [e] and [o] in these actually have different phonemes present than those who have [eI] and [oU], especially when those would still be heard as the same words by listeners, within a North American English context?

<<Exactly. Would one really suggest that those who have [e] and [o] in these actually have different phonemes present than those who have [eI] and [oU], especially when those would still be heard as the same words by listeners, within a North American English context?>>

No one said that that was the case, Travis.

>><<Exactly. Would one really suggest that those who have [e] and [o] in these actually have different phonemes present than those who have [eI] and [oU], especially when those would still be heard as the same words by listeners, within a North American English context?>>

No one said that that was the case, Travis.<<

Please show me at least a few minimal pairs for one or more North American English dialects where one can actually phonemically contrast [e] and [eI] and or [o] and [oI] then, if you want to have any case at all here.

<<Please show me at least a few minimal pairs for one or more North American English dialects where one can actually phonemically contrast [e] and [eI] and or [o] and [oI] then, if you want to have any case at all here.>>

No, you didn't understand me. I said that no one said that people who have [e] and [o] actually have different phonemes from those who have [eI] and [oU], just different ways of marking the phonemes.