Pronouncing "L'' and "R" like a diphthong?!

Alireza   Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:10 am GMT
Would you mind telling me exactly when and how we pronounce "L" and "R" like a diphthong?
I myself know that for exampel "feel" or "fear" must be pronouced like /fi..l/ or /fi..r/.
But is this true all the time or there are some exceptions?
For example is it true when these letters occur in the middle of a word like "woolen", "foolish", or some other instances?
By the way /.. / is representing schwa.{ SuperMemo users know }

best wishes!
Brennus   Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:33 am GMT
Alireza,

You might want to check out pronuciation guides in Dictionary.com and Websters Dictionary (both online) for American English pronunciations and the Oxford Dictionary Online for British pronunciations.

You will see that there are no diphthongs in any of the words you mentioned, however; only consonant, long vowel and short vowel sounds.
Lazar   Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:50 am GMT
Ignore Brennus. His answer is misleading and over-generalizes.

Before R, tense vowels tend to "break" into a centering diphthong, which is a vowel followed by a schwa. American dictionaries tend to ignore this and transcribe these diphthongs as mere short vowels, but specifying these diphthongs is essential to a transcription of British English or of any dialect (such as my own American dialect) that maintains pre-rhotic tense lax distinctions.

<<You will see that there are no diphthongs in any of the words you mentioned, however; only consonant, long vowel and short vowel sounds.>>

How about you actually *look* at the dictionaries before shooting your mouth off? British dictionaries (even Oxford with its more "progressive" transcription scheme) would most definitely transcribe "fear" as [fI@], with a centering diphthong.

As for breaking (schwa insertion) before L, this is less common, but it is shown as optional in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary: http://m-w.com/ . Look up "feel" or "veil" for instance.
Brennus   Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:22 pm GMT
I think you're living in a dream world, Lazar and even worse, you've got a mean streak in you.
Jim   Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:06 am GMT
I'm not sure what you mean by "Before R, tense vowels tend to 'break' into a centering diphthong, which is a vowel followed by a schwa." Lazar.

It's my understanding that

The vowel in "fear" is [I@] in RP. This is vowel. It's not a tense vowel before an <r> it's a centring diphthong. It is not followed by any schwa. It's not followed by anything. Orthographically the <r> is part of the vowel-trigraph.

Similarly, "air" is pronounced as a vowel in RP. The whole word is a grapheme representing [e@]. It's not [ei] plus [r] it's just [e@]. The same applies to "tour": the <our> is the grapheme representing [u@].
Travis   Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:25 am GMT
>>I think you're living in a dream world, Lazar and even worse, you've got a mean streak in you.<<

And you always speak as if you are an authority about whatever, have way too many preconceived notions about things which are in practice not very applicable to anything beyond a narrow worldview, and think you know way more about any given subject than you really do, which is not a good combination at all.
Steve K   Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:44 am GMT
Get a pronouncing dictionary or listen to some recorded English and try to imitate the pronunciation. All the the rest of this pseudo-theory is just so much useless hairsplitting that has nothing to do with speaking or learning languages. It is typical of most what is "taught" under the title "linguistics", so that some pretentious self-styled academics can amuse others of the same ilk, who will perpetuate the rituals.
Kirk   Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:56 am GMT
<<I think you're living in a dream world, Lazar and even worse, you've got a mean streak in you.>>

Lazar, mean streak?! Haha. I don't think I've ever seen reason to believe he has such a thing (notice, by the way, that his comments attacked merely your responses and were not ad hominem, something you apparently couldn't manage). However, like me (and Travis), when he consistently reads comments which are based on little or no fact, are blatantly wrong, or simply obfuscatory, all said with an air of smug (yet unfounded) confidence, he has reason to be frustrated.
Guest   Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:15 am GMT
"Get a pronouncing dictionary or listen to some recorded English and try to imitate the pronunciation. All the the rest of this pseudo-theory is just so much useless hairsplitting that has nothing to do with speaking or learning languages. It is typical of most what is "taught" under the title "linguistics", so that some pretentious self-styled academics can amuse others of the same ilk, who will perpetuate the rituals."

No need to post any more questions then...let's just shut down the forum.
Travis   Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:25 am GMT
>>Get a pronouncing dictionary or listen to some recorded English and try to imitate the pronunciation. All the the rest of this pseudo-theory is just so much useless hairsplitting that has nothing to do with speaking or learning languages. It is typical of most what is "taught" under the title "linguistics", so that some pretentious self-styled academics can amuse others of the same ilk, who will perpetuate the rituals.<<

And without such "pseudo-theory", forget about actually understanding how things like pronunciation and like in various languages, that is, phonology and phonetics, actually work. What does one gain from your idiotic antiintellectualism, other than being able to claim that one isn't "pretentious" or like, whatever that might happen to actually mean? You seem to think here that ignorance is somehow better than actually understanding languages overall, and that actually understanding such or at least attempting to do so as best as possible is somehow not a good thing, possibly about of some kind of useless pseudo-populism, where any kind of knowledge beyond that of the average person is somehow a bad thing.
Kirk   Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:26 am GMT
<<No need to post any more questions then...let's just shut down the forum.>>

Haha, agreed--yes, Steve K, linguists aren't actually always in pursuit of finding out more about how language is and how it works but are actually trying only to amuse themselves, squabble over completely irrelevant linguistic minutiae, and deceive others while cleverly passing off their useless findings as somehow pertinent to the study of human language.

While we're at it--how about those doctors? I mean, really, who are *they* trying to kid? All they do is pay for expensive medical school, amuse themselves with their highbrow "medical" journals, and pretend they're actually trying to further the knowledge and treatment of the human body.



And now it's my turn to say....come on.
Jim   Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:47 am GMT
... and (just my two cents worth) who do you think writes these pronouncing dictionaries ... could it be ... no ... linguists?
Steve K   Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:07 pm GMT
Pronouncing dictionary meant an online dictionary with sound files for each word.

I do not think you can compare doctors or medical research to the sophistry of linguistics. The learning of languages is based on a lot of listening and reading and eventually speaking and writing. A person can learn languages without reference to the work of linguists, but the health of individuals does depend on the progress of medical science.

All the schwas, the phonemes, the graphemes, the dangling participles socio-linguistics etc. ar irrelevant to the language learner.
Geoff_One   Tue Oct 04, 2005 2:15 pm GMT
<< but the health of individuals does depend on the progress of medical science. >>

Steve K,

What do you mean by the progress of medical science? Establishment research medical science? What do you include in medical science? From what you know about the progress of medical science, how long do you expect to live for ?

Using certain methods to study languages reduces stress etc which increases life span. Is research into these methods included in your idea of medical science?
Steve K   Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:16 pm GMT
The progress of medical science refers to the doubling of life expectancy achieved over the last century through what you call "establishment research". I expect to live to over 80. At the turn of the century the number was 40.

None of the concepts of graphemes, phonemes, schwas etc. has anything to do with medical science.