Why is the vowel in "cut" often transcribed as [V]? I'm American and I think that's inaccurate nonsense. The vowel in "cut" is really [6]. [V] is wrong.
[V] in "cut"?
In my dialect, [V] would be rather accurate in most cases for most individuals, as such is an unrounded back vowel (not a central vowel) in it. It can vary though, as I will often tend more towards [7] (or even higher), especially in more formal/careful/stressed speech, while [A] will also sporadically appear (especially in unstressed informal speech) as also will [1] at times.
<<Why is the vowel in "cut" often transcribed as [V]? I'm American and I think that's inaccurate nonsense. The vowel in "cut" is really [6]. [V] is wrong.>>
I'm an American, and I think that [V] is an accurate transcription of that vowel for my speech. [6] is the vowel found in Southern British English and Australian English, which I perceive to be different.
I'm an American, and I think that [V] is an accurate transcription of that vowel for my speech. [6] is the vowel found in Southern British English and Australian English, which I perceive to be different.
<<I'm an American, and I think that [V] is an accurate transcription of that vowel for my speech. [6] is the vowel found in Southern British English and Australian English, which I perceive to be different.>>
Hmm. [V] seems like it's too back. But [6] may equally be too front for me. My vowel may actually be somewhere between the two. I don't know what part of the States you're from but I'm from Florida. Do you perceive a difference between the vowels in "abut"? The dictionary insists that they're different, but here in Florida most people make no distinction whatsoever between them.
Hmm. [V] seems like it's too back. But [6] may equally be too front for me. My vowel may actually be somewhere between the two. I don't know what part of the States you're from but I'm from Florida. Do you perceive a difference between the vowels in "abut"? The dictionary insists that they're different, but here in Florida most people make no distinction whatsoever between them.
<<Hmm. [V] seems like it's too back. But [6] may equally be too front for me. My vowel may actually be somewhere between the two.>>
Yeah, I don't think that my vowel is completely back; I think mine may likewise be in between [V] and [6]. It's just that I do perceive a difference between the vowel used in many American dialects (such as my own) and the one used in England and Australia. That's why I like to use [V] for my dialect and [6] for those other dialects.
<<I don't know what part of the States you're from but I'm from Florida.>>
I'm from Massachusetts.
<<Do you perceive a difference between the vowels in "abut"? The dictionary insists that they're different, but here in Florida most people make no distinction whatsoever between them.>>
Yeah, I don't really perceive a difference between the vowels in "abut".
Yeah, I don't think that my vowel is completely back; I think mine may likewise be in between [V] and [6]. It's just that I do perceive a difference between the vowel used in many American dialects (such as my own) and the one used in England and Australia. That's why I like to use [V] for my dialect and [6] for those other dialects.
<<I don't know what part of the States you're from but I'm from Florida.>>
I'm from Massachusetts.
<<Do you perceive a difference between the vowels in "abut"? The dictionary insists that they're different, but here in Florida most people make no distinction whatsoever between them.>>
Yeah, I don't really perceive a difference between the vowels in "abut".
The original post was meant for Lazar, but I'm going to respond to it as well:
>>Hmm. [V] seems like it's too back. But [6] may equally be too front for me. My vowel may actually be somewhere between the two.<<
Whatever the vowel I have for such, for me it is always clearly a back vowel, just as backed as my [o] or [u] (which are only barely fronted, and are only noticably fronted at all to begin with when compared with, say German [o:] and [u:]).
>>I don't know what part of the States you're from but I'm from Florida.<<
I myself am from Wisconsin (as if I haven't said such here oh so many times...)
>>Do you perceive a difference between the vowels in "abut"? The dictionary insists that they're different, but here in Florida most people make no distinction whatsoever between them.<<
I do not normally *subjectively* perceive them as all too different, primarily because for me they are the same phoneme, but when I actually think about it the first vowel in "abut" is clearly central in nature while the second vowel in "abut" is clearly backed in nature.
>>Hmm. [V] seems like it's too back. But [6] may equally be too front for me. My vowel may actually be somewhere between the two.<<
Whatever the vowel I have for such, for me it is always clearly a back vowel, just as backed as my [o] or [u] (which are only barely fronted, and are only noticably fronted at all to begin with when compared with, say German [o:] and [u:]).
>>I don't know what part of the States you're from but I'm from Florida.<<
I myself am from Wisconsin (as if I haven't said such here oh so many times...)
>>Do you perceive a difference between the vowels in "abut"? The dictionary insists that they're different, but here in Florida most people make no distinction whatsoever between them.<<
I do not normally *subjectively* perceive them as all too different, primarily because for me they are the same phoneme, but when I actually think about it the first vowel in "abut" is clearly central in nature while the second vowel in "abut" is clearly backed in nature.
In Northern England cut is pronounced as cUt to rhyme with pUt. In the South-East of England, however, cut does not rhyme with put, so they would be written as cVt and pUt.
Is there also a vowel split in the US between cut and put?
Is there also a vowel split in the US between cut and put?
<<Is there also a vowel split in the US between cut and put?>>
Yes, in North American English, they're ["kVt] and ["pUt], respectively.
Yes, in North American English, they're ["kVt] and ["pUt], respectively.
Try professor Canepari's PRONUNCIATION OF ENGLISH:
http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/HPr_02_English.pdf
[he says American English has [V] only in front of [ l ] ]
http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/HPr_02_English.pdf
[he says American English has [V] only in front of [ l ] ]
Kelly: You wouldn't happen to have other chapters of that book? I'd be especially interested in Japanese pronunciation?
<<[he says American English has [V] only in front of [ l ] ]>>
No he doesn't. In his transcription of American English, he transcribes that phoneme the same way in all contexts.
And you need to careful to remember that he's *not* using standard IPA, but rather his own "Can-IPA". To see exactly what his vowel symbols represent, check out p. 5 of this document: http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/HPh_08_Vowels.pdf . Within Can-IPA, the symbol that he uses for American English /V/ is a back-central (not fully back) vowel, and the symbol he uses for British English /V/ is a central vowel. I don't agree with all of his choices, but I think his treatment of this phoneme is right on the mark.
No he doesn't. In his transcription of American English, he transcribes that phoneme the same way in all contexts.
And you need to careful to remember that he's *not* using standard IPA, but rather his own "Can-IPA". To see exactly what his vowel symbols represent, check out p. 5 of this document: http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/HPh_08_Vowels.pdf . Within Can-IPA, the symbol that he uses for American English /V/ is a back-central (not fully back) vowel, and the symbol he uses for British English /V/ is a central vowel. I don't agree with all of his choices, but I think his treatment of this phoneme is right on the mark.
<<You wouldn't happen to have other chapters of that book? I'd be especially interested in Japanese pronunciation?>>
This is his PDF page: http://venus.unive.it/canipa/en/pdffiles.shtml , where he's posted parts of his books. He's posted big chapters on English, French, German, and Italian, but unfortunately you'll have to buy his (incredibly expensive) book in order to see the similar chapters on Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Hindi, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Esperanto.
But on the PDF page, you can find brief treatments of many smaller European and Asian languages, as well as a big chapter on Latin pronunciation (in Italian), and the entirety of a book that he wrote (again, in Italian) detailing how speakers of various non-Italian languages pronounce Italian. Presuming you know at least a little Italian, you could gain some good info by reading the chapter on Japanese in this book.
But it's really important that you read his online "Treatment of Vowels and Vocoids" and "Treatment of Consonants and Contoids", because otherwise, you won't have a clue what half his Can-IPA symbols mean.
This is his PDF page: http://venus.unive.it/canipa/en/pdffiles.shtml , where he's posted parts of his books. He's posted big chapters on English, French, German, and Italian, but unfortunately you'll have to buy his (incredibly expensive) book in order to see the similar chapters on Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Hindi, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Esperanto.
But on the PDF page, you can find brief treatments of many smaller European and Asian languages, as well as a big chapter on Latin pronunciation (in Italian), and the entirety of a book that he wrote (again, in Italian) detailing how speakers of various non-Italian languages pronounce Italian. Presuming you know at least a little Italian, you could gain some good info by reading the chapter on Japanese in this book.
But it's really important that you read his online "Treatment of Vowels and Vocoids" and "Treatment of Consonants and Contoids", because otherwise, you won't have a clue what half his Can-IPA symbols mean.