Hello,
from checking some discussions I have learned that the diphthongs /eI/ and /oU/ do not have phonemic quality in American English, so some
SAMPA variants omit the second vowels alltogether.
Thus you have
play = /ple/
go = /go/
pet = /pEt/
cause = /cOz/
So far so good.
However I have to work with a phonetic lexicon that insists to transcribe
words like "air" and "forest" as /er/ and /for@st/. I would prefer /Er/ and /fOr@st/. It does not seem very logical to me,
however the mapping could be done.
What make the situation more complicated is the fact that the
lexicon also contains entries of foreign languages, e.g. Spanish.
The lexicon transcribes these e.g.:
Dos (Casas) = /dos/
Los (Altos) = /los/
where both rhyme with "nose". Is this a good idea, or should
/dOs/ and /lOs/ be preferred? How do Americans pronounce these
words?
For the /e/ I have the examples
Dante = /dAnte/
La Fuente = /lA fwEnte/
which sounds somewhat less strange to me, but maybe /i/ should
be an alternative. I have been told that /E/ at the end is not acceptable
for American natives.
Could someone point me to a dictionary that uses these conventions
and is explicit about the reasons for doing so?
Franz
There are a number of issues here. The first one is that before /r/ in most NAE dialects, vowel laxness/tenseness distinctions are not made, except in dialects which lack a complete Mary-marry-merry merger, a complete nearer-mirror merger, and a complete horse-hoarse merger. Of any given vowel, whether a lax or a tense vowel is, in any given place, is preferred before /r/ is dialect-specific.
The second one is vowel distinctions in word-final position. Only tense vowels, diphthongs, and /@/ are allowed, as vowels go, in word-final position in most NAE dialects. In these cases above, "Dante" and "La Fuente", I myself would strongly prefer /e/ because that is simply closest to the vowel used in the original languages such are from, even though there will be some difference from such, as in word-final position, /e/ in most NAE dialects will most likely be realized as a diphthong to some degree or another. As for /i/, the difference between /i/ and /e/ in practice is more than that between, say, /I/ and /E/ in NAE dialects, as unstressed /E/ often becomes /I/ in many places, but /e/ does not often become /i/.
<<However I have to work with a phonetic lexicon that insists to transcribe words like "air" and "forest" as /er/ and /for@st/. I would prefer /Er/ and /fOr@st/. It does not seem very logical to me,
however the mapping could be done.>>
Well you're talking about dialectal variations here. I, for instance, say /er/ and /fOr@st/.
<<La Fuente = /lA fwEnte/
which sounds somewhat less strange to me, but maybe /i/ should
be an alternative. I have been told that /E/ at the end is not acceptable
for American natives.>>
Well /E/ isn't acceptable for American natives, but "La Fuente" is pronounced with /e/ on the end, not /E/. Final /e/ is totally acceptable - it occurs in words like "Monday" and "hooray".
<<where both rhyme with "nose". Is this a good idea, or should
/dOs/ and /lOs/ be preferred? How do Americans pronounce these
words? >>
Americans almost always pronounce these words /los/ and /dos/. But mind you, they don't rhyme with "nose", because "nose" ends in /z/, not /s/.
Maybe it's just me, but the first vowel in cause /cOz/ and forest /fOr@st/ are definitely not the same. What transcription system are you using and what dialect are you basing this on?
I'm somewhat reluctant to transcribe my vowels as in "play" and "go" as diphthongal, because in my speech they really aren't in many cases, especially compared to true diphthongs I have like /æU/ /OI/ and /aI/ as in "cow" "coy" and "kite".
At most, "play" and "go" strongly emphasize the first vowel of the "diphthong" but there's a possibility of a barely percepitble, tiny offglide of /I/ or /U/, respectively. I think this may only occur in vowel-final position when no consonant is following. My intuitions on the subject are backed up by phonetic research by various linguists. In "Vowels and Consonants," my favorite introductory phonetics book by Peter Ladefoged, he lists conservative General American and BBC English as having strong diphthongal qualities for "play" and "go," while his chart on Californian vowels shows those vowels as single points with no shift in quality thruout the timing of their production. I would say this isn't just confined to Californians, but is relatively common thruout the US, as I hear this in other speakers as well.
The only problem for me with transcribing /o/ as monophthongal is that it implies the highly rounded, cardinal /o/, which is different from what I have. My /o/ is usually monophthongal, but it's also not very rounded at all and is somewhat fronted, so finding the right symbol to transcribe it is tricky. If I get the chance to record myself, I'll do that once I have some time to and put it up here.
As for "cause" and "forest," I have /kAz/ and /fOrIst/ for those, so, like american nic, they definitely do not have the same vowel. I don't know how american nic would transcribe his pronunciation on those words, but I have the "cot-caught" merger, in which have both merged to /A/ or somewhere around there in my speech. My /O/ in "forest," in comparison, is higher and rounded, not at all close to /A/.
I say "air" as /Er/, not /er/. I also have no problem having /e/ at the end, as in "fuente" and "Dante," which I consistently pronounce /fwEnte/ and /dAnte/ in English. I live in a building called "Mesa Verde," which I pronounce /mes@ vErde/ in English.
<<Maybe it's just me, but the first vowel in cause /cOz/ and forest /fOr@st/ are definitely not the same. What transcription system are you using and what dialect are you basing this on?>>
They're the same for me, though: /O/. I speak Eastern New England.
<< As for "cause" and "forest," I have /kAz/ and /fOrIst/ for those, so, like american nic, they definitely do not have the same vowel. I don't know how american nic would transcribe his pronunciation on those words, but I have the "cot-caught" merger, in which have both merged to /A/ or somewhere around there in my speech. My /O/ in "forest," in comparison, is higher and rounded, not at all close to /A/. >>
For some reason my mind can't grasp these transcription systems, but these pronunciations might be the same as mine.
For me, cause has the same vowel as cot/caught (I have that merger) and the first vowel of forest is the same as four/for/fore for me.
For me, "forest" doesn't rhyme with, say, "sorest".
forest = /fOrIst/
sorest = /sorIst/
There are only three phonemic diphthongs in English, heard in eye, now, and toy, respectively. Many pronunciations of English include a lot of other diphthongs, but they re not phonemic and so are not important for ESL.
Many phonetic transcriptions of English incorrectly use /e/ for /E/, which leads to no end of confusion when teaching ESL students who know how to use the IPA correctly and/or who make a clear distinction between /e/ and /E/ in their own languages. These English transcribers who make this mistake usually put /eI/ routinely in place of /e/, and don't seem to care or realize that /E/ (as in "men") is different from /e/ (as in "pay") in just about all pronunciations of English. The distinction is in the pure vowel, not the presence or absence of a diphthong.
These are usually the same brain-dead transcribers who incorrectly use /i/ and /i:/ instead of /I/ and /i/. The phonemic difference between these two phonemes is in vowel quality, not in length. Vowel length hasn't made any difference in English in centuries.
<<For me, "forest" doesn't rhyme with, say, "sorest".
forest = /fOrIst/
sorest = /sorIst/ >>
Huh...for me they do. So for you is forest a homophone of 'farest'? The fore-ist pronunciation must be one of those Canadianisms of mine...
<<So for you is forest a homophone of 'farest'?>>
Not at all. I pronounce "farest" /fArIst/ and "forest" /fOrIst/.
"For me, cause has the same vowel as cot/caught (I have that merger) and the first vowel of forest is the same as four/for/fore for me."
....on to your next comment....
"Huh...for me they do. So for you is forest a homophone of 'farest'? The fore-ist pronunciation must be one of those Canadianisms of mine..."
I say everything you listed just as you do, american nic.
cot/caught/cause...../A/
forest/sorest/four/for/fore........./Or/
farest..................../Ar/
From your previous descriptions in other posts, your only Canadianisms are in your pronunciation of that small class of "sorry" and the "-orrow" words, as [Or], while GenAm has [Ar] for those words. GenAm has [Or] for all other "or" words.
On to Mxsmanic's comment:
"These are usually the same brain-dead transcribers who incorrectly use /i/ and /i:/ instead of /I/ and /i/. The phonemic difference between these two phonemes is in vowel quality, not in length. Vowel length hasn't made any difference in English in centuries."
Vowel-length differentiation is mostly gone in NAE (it certainly is in my speech), but many English dialects still have vowel-length differentiation. Someone posted on this a month or so ago, he was from the northern UK (I believe...I don't exactly remember where) and said he had /kAt/ for "cot" and /kA:t/ for "caught," so he had the "cot-caught" merger in terms of place of articulation but they were still distinguished by vowel length.
<<but many English dialects still have vowel-length differentiation.>>
Remember this is Mxsmanic you're talking to. For him there's only one dialect of English - the rest is just substandard, undesirable rubbish.
"Remember this is Mxsmanic you're talking to. For him there's only one dialect of English - the rest is just substandard, undesirable rubbish."
Haha, that's right. What was I thinking trying to reason? Well, good thing my life and the way I speak aren't bound by prescriptivists whose narrow definitions of acceptable speech are, surprise, surprise, based off of their own speech! Funny how that works. Mxsmanic, people would take your arguments more seriously if you stopped implying or outright stating that other (native!) speakers' speech patterns were inferior or "substandard." Also, not everyone's phonological patterns match up with yours, so making general, broad, statements about things like vowel length differentiation being nonexistent in English "for centuries" is nonsense.
''but many English dialects still have vowel-length differentiation.''
Kirk,
Here's are examples of vowel length differentiation in my accent:
bit - /bIt/
bid - /bI:t/
bat - /bæt/
bad - /bæ:t/
as - /æ:s/
ass - /æs/
My accent undergoes final consonant devoicing.