"oo" sound

nick   Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:42 pm GMT
how to make different "oo" sound between "foot" and "food"?
César   Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:51 pm GMT
The "oo" phoneme in "food" takes longer to pronounce; hence, it does not sound exactly like the one in "foot." Also, it sounds more like the "u" found in Spanish.


Regards
Ben   Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:19 pm GMT
Here's a recording of how I pronounce them:

http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/439b5551_130e0/bc/My+recording/Food+and+foot.mp3?bfI3YoDBNssmjx.i

Hope that helps :)

Ben.
nick   Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:06 am GMT
I can't hear it, Ben!
Can someone give me some more about it? Thanx!
Kirk   Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:02 am GMT
The vowel for "foot" is /U/ in X-SAMPA. If you're familiar with German, it's very similar to the German short-u as in "Hund" [hUnt].

The vowel for "food" is /u/ in X-SAMPA. It's actually usually fronter than cardinal /u/ but that's a close enough approximation for now.
Jim   Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:52 am GMT
For some of us it is quite fronted. In Australian English it central. I think some dialects even have a more fronted one than that. Kirk's transcription doesn't show length but it is after all a phonemic transcription and Kirk being a Californian doesn't have phonemic vowel length. This is the norm for American English however it doesn't mean that César is wrong in saying that the "'oo' phoneme in "food" takes longer to pronounce;"
Uriel   Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:08 am GMT
Well, I'm American, and even I hold the "oo" in food a little longer than the "oo" in foot.
Kirk   Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:13 am GMT
<<Well, I'm American, and even I hold the "oo" in food a little longer than the "oo" in foot.>>

That's because "food" has a voiced consonant following the vowel while "foot" doesn't so it's actually not an equal comparison ;) In English, vowels are commonly lengthened before voiced consonants. A good comparison would be between "look" and "Luke."

As Jim indicated, for most North American English speakers, there is no phonemic vowel length. For me personally, the vowels in "look" and "Luke" are differentiated by quality/position in the mouth, not by length, while speakers like Jim would probably have a longer vowel in "Luke" than in "look."

<<For some of us it is quite fronted. In Australian English it central.>>

Yeah, I almost never have [u], for me it's fronted an unrounded. I usually transcibe it as [M] but it's actually fronter than that. It's somewhere in between [1] and [M] for me.

<<This is the norm for American English however it doesn't mean that César is wrong in saying that the "'oo' phoneme in "food" takes longer to pronounce>>

Well even for those of us without phonemic vowel length, strictly speaking the vowel in "food" is longer because it's followed by a voiced consonant, while "foot" isn't. That's why I was thinking "Luke/look" would be a better minimal pair for the vowels in question because there isn't the confusion brought about by following voiced or unvoiced consonants.
nick   Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:11 am GMT
I think it's clearer for me now, but it is still confused for me.
<<As Jim indicated, for most North American English speakers, there is no phonemic vowel length. For me personally, the vowels in "look" and "Luke" are differentiated by quality/position in the mouth, not by length, while speakers like Jim would probably have a longer vowel in "Luke" than in "look.">>
so anybody tell me the position in the mouth for each? That will help, I think.
Brennus   Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:02 am GMT
Yes, it's frustrating trying to represent some sounds with a standard English keyboard and no access to diacritical marks, the IPA or Greek letters all of which can be used to represent the English oo sound in 'foot' in various ways. Using a capital u (U) to represent this sound doesn't quite cut it since it is not used in any linguistics books or journals. Some of the newer linguistics publications I've seen use the Greek letter upsilon - a curled u.
Lazar   Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:18 am GMT
<<Using a capital u (U) to represent this sound doesn't quite cut it since it is not used in any linguistics books or journals.>>

Why does the X-SAMPA [U] not cut it? It conveys exactly the same information as the upsilon, because there is a symbol-to-symbol correspondence between X-SAMPA and IPA. Obviously books and journals would use IPA because they have the ability to, but for the purposes of an internet forum where we're limited to ASCII, X-SAMPA is the perfect functional equivalent.
Kirk   Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:24 am GMT
<<Using a capital u (U) to represent this sound doesn't quite cut it since it is not used in any linguistics books or journals.>>

/U/ is the X-SAMPA symbol for it, and X-SAMPA is a way to represent IPA without needing special fonts.

<<Some of the newer linguistics publications I've seen use the Greek letter upsilon - a curled u.>>

Yeah, that's the IPA symbol for it.

<<so anybody tell me the position in the mouth for each? That will help, I think.>>

/u/ as in "Luke" or "too" is a high, back, rounded vowel (but note that for many English speakers it may be fronter and less rounded). Here's the Wikipedia article on this vowel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_back_rounded_vowel


/U/ as in "wood" or "put" is a near-high near-back rounded vowel. Thus, it is typically a bit fronter and lower than /u/. There is also less tongue constriction (it is known as a "lax" vowel). Note that for many English speakers it may be more fronted, centralized and unrounded. Here is the Wikipedia article on this vowel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-close_near-back_rounded_vowel