Ack, that should be "[o] and [oU]" in my previous post.
[o] vs. [oU] and [e] vs. [eI]
>>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.<<
Sorry, I misread your post.
Sorry, I misread your post.
Spaceflight,
"/eI/ and /oU/ aren't phonemes because they contain more than one symbol," wrote Mxsmanic. Spaceflight, you're right. "/aI/", "/aU/" and "/OI/" also contain more than one symbol but Mxsmanic accknowledges the fact that these are phonemes. Of course, he might be in the habit of putting "a non-syllabic diacritic under the second vowel" but this is not common practice. Mxsmanic is plainly wrong here.
Travis,
Yes, "Depending on whose English one is speaking of," and yes, I was "speaking of Australian English in practice,". However, though Mxsmanic may have been "speaking of North American English in reality." he wrote as if he'd been speaking of English in general. "There's no difference between [e] and [eI] in English;" he wrote. What Mxsmanic is guilty of really is speaking of his dialect as if it were the only dialect of English.
I wouldn't "suggest that those who have [e] and [o] in these actually have different phonemes present than those who have [eI] and [oU]," but moreover nor would I even suggest that my [{I] and [@}] are different phonemes inspite of the fact that "NAE and AusE have fundamentally different vowel systems across the board,".
The way I see it is that (unless you go somewhere like East Anglia) we all use the same pair of phonemes for "coke" and "cake". Also, unless your reader knows that by "/o/" and "/e/" it is these two vowels respectively which you mean, you do run the risk of being misinterpreted. I have nothing against this use of "/o/" and "/e/" in appropriate context as long as we keep in mine that this context is dialect-specific.
Our dear friend Mxsmanic is in the habit of regarding his dialect as the standard (though he'd conceed that RP (and oddly enough Esturary English) is also standard). He then acts as if this "standard English" is all that really counts ... is basically what English is.
The /I/ and /U/ in /eI/ and /oU/ are not redundant if the context is English in general. Rather they are a pretty effective way of making it clear that it is the vowels in "cake" and "coke" rather than the ones in "bed" and "caught" or "cot".
There are may be only three phonemic diphthongs in Mxsmanic's dialect of English but in AusE the vowels in "cake" and "coke" must also be pronounced as diphthongs.
"/eI/ and /oU/ aren't phonemes because they contain more than one symbol," wrote Mxsmanic. Spaceflight, you're right. "/aI/", "/aU/" and "/OI/" also contain more than one symbol but Mxsmanic accknowledges the fact that these are phonemes. Of course, he might be in the habit of putting "a non-syllabic diacritic under the second vowel" but this is not common practice. Mxsmanic is plainly wrong here.
Travis,
Yes, "Depending on whose English one is speaking of," and yes, I was "speaking of Australian English in practice,". However, though Mxsmanic may have been "speaking of North American English in reality." he wrote as if he'd been speaking of English in general. "There's no difference between [e] and [eI] in English;" he wrote. What Mxsmanic is guilty of really is speaking of his dialect as if it were the only dialect of English.
I wouldn't "suggest that those who have [e] and [o] in these actually have different phonemes present than those who have [eI] and [oU]," but moreover nor would I even suggest that my [{I] and [@}] are different phonemes inspite of the fact that "NAE and AusE have fundamentally different vowel systems across the board,".
The way I see it is that (unless you go somewhere like East Anglia) we all use the same pair of phonemes for "coke" and "cake". Also, unless your reader knows that by "/o/" and "/e/" it is these two vowels respectively which you mean, you do run the risk of being misinterpreted. I have nothing against this use of "/o/" and "/e/" in appropriate context as long as we keep in mine that this context is dialect-specific.
Our dear friend Mxsmanic is in the habit of regarding his dialect as the standard (though he'd conceed that RP (and oddly enough Esturary English) is also standard). He then acts as if this "standard English" is all that really counts ... is basically what English is.
The /I/ and /U/ in /eI/ and /oU/ are not redundant if the context is English in general. Rather they are a pretty effective way of making it clear that it is the vowels in "cake" and "coke" rather than the ones in "bed" and "caught" or "cot".
There are may be only three phonemic diphthongs in Mxsmanic's dialect of English but in AusE the vowels in "cake" and "coke" must also be pronounced as diphthongs.
<<There are may be only three phonemic diphthongs in Mxsmanic's dialect of English but in AusE the vowels in "cake" and "coke" must also be pronounced as diphthongs.>>
But remember that there can be a difference between a phonemic diphthong and a non-phonemic phonetic diphthong. The vowels in "cake" and "coke" must be pronounced as diphthongs in my dialect (using a monophthongal [e]/[o] in "bay", "bade", "tow", or "toad" would sound decidedly off to me), but for the reasons I outlined in my previous post, I don't consider those to be phonemic diphthongs for me.
But remember that there can be a difference between a phonemic diphthong and a non-phonemic phonetic diphthong. The vowels in "cake" and "coke" must be pronounced as diphthongs in my dialect (using a monophthongal [e]/[o] in "bay", "bade", "tow", or "toad" would sound decidedly off to me), but for the reasons I outlined in my previous post, I don't consider those to be phonemic diphthongs for me.
<<What about those few of us who actually pronounce words like cake as /kek/ and coke as /kok/?>>
It's not just a few--Travis and I also pronounce those as monophthongs (altho they may be realized in slightly different parts of the mouth due to our differing dialects).
It's not just a few--Travis and I also pronounce those as monophthongs (altho they may be realized in slightly different parts of the mouth due to our differing dialects).
[eI] (2 syllabes) vs [e_I^] (1 syllabe) ?
[e@] vs [e_@^] ?
[oU] vs [o_U^] ?
[o@] vs [o_@^] ?
[@U] vs [@_U^] ?
[aI] vs [a_I^] ?
/u:/ =? [u_@^], [U_u:^] etc
/i:/ =? [i_@^], [I_i:^] etc
/eI/ =? [e_I^], [E_I^], [e] etc
[e@] vs [e_@^] ?
[oU] vs [o_U^] ?
[o@] vs [o_@^] ?
[@U] vs [@_U^] ?
[aI] vs [a_I^] ?
/u:/ =? [u_@^], [U_u:^] etc
/i:/ =? [i_@^], [I_i:^] etc
/eI/ =? [e_I^], [E_I^], [e] etc
One reason, in the context of my own dialect, to strongly favor /e/ and /o/ over /eI/ and /oU/ analysis-wise, is the distribution of cases where [eI] and [oU] occur. The matter is whenever any middle or high tense vowel occurs before another vowel, they are realized with a falling-rising triphthong with an off-on-glide of [I] or [U] inserted between them, depending on whether the tense vowel is a front vowel or a back vowel, respectively. Considering that in informal speech, this is the only position in which [eI] and [oU] at all consistently appear, and in this position also [iI] and [uU] appear, it would be better to consider this as a sort of epenthesis. To do otherwise would make it such that one would likely have to treat what are conventionally called /i/ and /u/ as /iI/ and /uU/, despite that this is the *only* position besides word-finally where such forms appear, and even word-finally [iI] and [uU] do not appear.
However, it is absurd to propose complex phonemes, in this case phonemic diphthongs, in a dialect where in almost all positions what would be monophthongal "allophones" would appear, with the actual diphthongal realizations being very limited and always predictable in scope. At the same time, if one considered /eI/ and /oU/ to be phonemes, but considered [iI] and [uU] to just be allophones of /i/ and /u/, one would require far more complex phonological rules, as one would have to handle both why /eI/ and /oU/ are monophthongally realized in most positions, while one would have to separately handle /i/ and /u/ are realized with offglides prevocalically. Rule-wise, things would be much simpler if one treated the underlying forms as /e/, /o/, /i/, /u/, and had separate rule for offglide insertion prevocalically which applied to all of them from the rule allowing offglides for /e/ and /o/ word-finally in more formal or emphatic speech.
Of course, this analysis is ignoring even trying to maintain any concordance of underlying forms across dialects but rather is purely dialect-specific. Yet at the same, the basic idea that the actual underlying forms in question are not /e/ and /o/ but rather /eI/ and /oU/ is absurd for North American English dialects which strongly prefer monophthongs for such in most positions and registers. One way one might try to handle such is to propose that such are not /e/ and /o/ or /eI/ and /oU/, but rather /e:/ and /o:/, which may be realized as either shortened or diphthongized depending on the dialect. However, this runs into the problem that in many North American English dialects, vowel length allophony can be quite significant, and is not affected at all, no matter what, by the tenseness or laxness of the vowels in question. As a result, it seems like trying to suggest that there is some underlying vowel length at the phonemic level which never reaches or affects realization at all seems rather artificial and more like an attempt to impose having a single underlying phonemic system for as many dialects as possible than anything else.
However, it is absurd to propose complex phonemes, in this case phonemic diphthongs, in a dialect where in almost all positions what would be monophthongal "allophones" would appear, with the actual diphthongal realizations being very limited and always predictable in scope. At the same time, if one considered /eI/ and /oU/ to be phonemes, but considered [iI] and [uU] to just be allophones of /i/ and /u/, one would require far more complex phonological rules, as one would have to handle both why /eI/ and /oU/ are monophthongally realized in most positions, while one would have to separately handle /i/ and /u/ are realized with offglides prevocalically. Rule-wise, things would be much simpler if one treated the underlying forms as /e/, /o/, /i/, /u/, and had separate rule for offglide insertion prevocalically which applied to all of them from the rule allowing offglides for /e/ and /o/ word-finally in more formal or emphatic speech.
Of course, this analysis is ignoring even trying to maintain any concordance of underlying forms across dialects but rather is purely dialect-specific. Yet at the same, the basic idea that the actual underlying forms in question are not /e/ and /o/ but rather /eI/ and /oU/ is absurd for North American English dialects which strongly prefer monophthongs for such in most positions and registers. One way one might try to handle such is to propose that such are not /e/ and /o/ or /eI/ and /oU/, but rather /e:/ and /o:/, which may be realized as either shortened or diphthongized depending on the dialect. However, this runs into the problem that in many North American English dialects, vowel length allophony can be quite significant, and is not affected at all, no matter what, by the tenseness or laxness of the vowels in question. As a result, it seems like trying to suggest that there is some underlying vowel length at the phonemic level which never reaches or affects realization at all seems rather artificial and more like an attempt to impose having a single underlying phonemic system for as many dialects as possible than anything else.
>>[eI] (2 syllabes) vs [e_I^] (1 syllabe) ?
[e@] vs [e_@^] ?
[oU] vs [o_U^] ?
[o@] vs [o_@^] ?
[@U] vs [@_U^] ?
[aI] vs [a_I^] ?<<
Well, of course the latter, but in most cases that is too tedious and verbose and completely unnecessary in practice, especially for dialects where all diphthongs are falling diphthongs except in ones deriving from a prevocalic /j/ or /w/.
[e@] vs [e_@^] ?
[oU] vs [o_U^] ?
[o@] vs [o_@^] ?
[@U] vs [@_U^] ?
[aI] vs [a_I^] ?<<
Well, of course the latter, but in most cases that is too tedious and verbose and completely unnecessary in practice, especially for dialects where all diphthongs are falling diphthongs except in ones deriving from a prevocalic /j/ or /w/.
Could you give an example of [aI] vs [a_I^] ?
[aI] in the French "laïc"?
[a_I^] in the English (RP) "eye"?
[aI] in the French "laïc"?
[a_I^] in the English (RP) "eye"?
[laik] *[laIk] — Fr <laïc>
[la_I^k] — En <like>
[lajka] — Fr <Laï(ka)>
[aikRwaR] — Fr <à y croire>
[aj] — Fr <ail>
[a_I^] — En <eye>
[pei] — Fr <pays>
[pEj(@)] — Fr <payent>
[pe_I^] / ?[pE_I^] — En <pay>
[la_I^k] — En <like>
[lajka] — Fr <Laï(ka)>
[aikRwaR] — Fr <à y croire>
[aj] — Fr <ail>
[a_I^] — En <eye>
[pei] — Fr <pays>
[pEj(@)] — Fr <payent>
[pe_I^] / ?[pE_I^] — En <pay>
I don't know of any English-dialects which have [EI] for what one could consider as /e/ or /eI/ myself. Such might exist in some English dialect somewhere, as it is often hard to make firm generalizations about English dialects, but I can't think of any dialects with such as such.
<<I don't know of any English-dialects which have [EI] for what one could consider as /e/ or /eI/ myself. Such might exist in some English dialect somewhere, as it is often hard to make firm generalizations about English dialects, but I can't think of any dialects with such as such.>>
I have /EI/ in "weight" which is distinct from the /e:/ I have in "wait". (Northern England)
I have /EI/ in "weight" which is distinct from the /e:/ I have in "wait". (Northern England)
I wouldn't find [EI] at all surprising considering that I have [{I], that RP is [eI] and that [EI] is pretty much in between these.
Travis,
You reasoning for favouring /e/ and /o/ over /eI/ and /oU/ analysis-wise the context of your dialect does make sense to me. Your analysis expressedly ignores "even trying to maintain any concordance of underlying forms across dialects" which is fine in that particluar context. What I have in mind, though, is transcriptions for English phonemes in general.
This, may, of course, be an absurdly impossible task but not entirely. It may be laxness verses tenseness which distinguishes "wet" and "wait" for you whereas for me the distinction is short vowel verses diphthong but can we not argue that my [e] and your [E] are the same phoneme and that my [{I] and your [e] are also the same phoneme?
There will, of course be phonemes that one dialect has and another lacks but is this too great a problem? You don't have my /O/ (RP's /Q/). Can't I just say that you're missing a phoneme? Of course, it's not really that simple but maybe you see where I'm trying to get.
Now, in a general English context how do we represent these vowels? All I'm trying to say is that "/eI/" and "/oU/" are probably less apt to cause confusion in such contexts than "/e/" and "/o/" would be. Of course this is very artificial but it's a real problem for people like the dictionary editors.
Travis,
You reasoning for favouring /e/ and /o/ over /eI/ and /oU/ analysis-wise the context of your dialect does make sense to me. Your analysis expressedly ignores "even trying to maintain any concordance of underlying forms across dialects" which is fine in that particluar context. What I have in mind, though, is transcriptions for English phonemes in general.
This, may, of course, be an absurdly impossible task but not entirely. It may be laxness verses tenseness which distinguishes "wet" and "wait" for you whereas for me the distinction is short vowel verses diphthong but can we not argue that my [e] and your [E] are the same phoneme and that my [{I] and your [e] are also the same phoneme?
There will, of course be phonemes that one dialect has and another lacks but is this too great a problem? You don't have my /O/ (RP's /Q/). Can't I just say that you're missing a phoneme? Of course, it's not really that simple but maybe you see where I'm trying to get.
Now, in a general English context how do we represent these vowels? All I'm trying to say is that "/eI/" and "/oU/" are probably less apt to cause confusion in such contexts than "/e/" and "/o/" would be. Of course this is very artificial but it's a real problem for people like the dictionary editors.