|
|
FOOT set
The FOOT set is generally transcribed as [U], but listening to the samples here: http://www.paulmeier.com/ipa/vowels.html, I wouldn't say that's accurate for most accents. Mine sounds like [7] to me, but the sample on there isn't 100% like mine; maybe I have [7_r]. I suppose it's the lax version of [M]. There's no lip rounding, and it's not quite as back as /u/. I posted a sample of some words in this set here: http://media.putfile.com/accent-sample-4---foot
Is my transcription accurate?
Hmm...I hate to seem like a flip-flopper, but in this case, I think that Ladefoged's sample is better ( http://hctv.humnet.ucla.edu/departments/linguistics/VowelsandConsonants/course/chapter1/vowels.html ). Paul Meier is good on the open vowels, but I think his [U] and [7] sound too close. Ladefoged's [U] sounds pretty much like what I use - I do usually have lip rounding there.
Now I'll admit, the vowel that I transcribe in my dialect as [7] - that is, in the diphthong [7U] - seems to be a mid vowel (just like the [e] in my [eI] diphthong), between true [7] and [V], but I think that even true [7] sounds a bit too open for your vowel here (if we listen to Ladefoged's [7]...I guess). One problem is that the IPA doesn't give us a symbol for the unrounded version of [U]; I've seen this vowel written as [M_o]. I've also seen suggestions that the IPA could use omega, ω, for this vowel; I suppose this makes sense graphically, because the visual relation between ω and ɯ seems analogous to that between ʊ and u. (But I don't know what openings would be available for this proposed vowel in X-SAMPA.)
<<I wouldn't say that's accurate for most accents.>>
Well, the "foot" vowel has undergone lip unrounding for many people - you definitely have it, and Kirk from California said that he had it as well, and I've read that it's common among Estuary speakers. But still, I think there are still a lot of speakers like me who do have lip rounding. The pronunciation of the American who says "put, could" ( http://www.antimoon.com/how/pronunc-soundsipa.htm ) sounds just like mine - except that he mad overemphasizes the /t/ - and he seems to have lip rounding.
With Ladefoged's samples, I would say my FOOT is more like [@\_-] than [7]. The Antimoon sample sounds like RP to me, but I'm sure there are many Americans who have a rounded FOOT vowel.
Omega seems like a good symbol for this in IPA, and [U\] would make sense for X-SAMPA, except that according Wikipedia, it's taken by a central lax close rounded vowel. What languages does this occur in? The IPA doesn't have a symbol for it, so why should X-SAMPA?
All recordings on Antimoon website in any form have been recorded by Tom who is not an American. He is Polish. Just a minor correction.
<< The Antimoon sample sounds like RP to me, but I'm sure there are many Americans who have a rounded FOOT vowel.>>
The Antimoon sample sounds completely normal to me. ;-)
<<What languages does this occur in?>>
Hmmm, English? (I guess I'm being semi-facetious here.) The IPA has a symbol for [ɶ], and as you can read here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_front_rounded_vowel ), a good case can be made that [ɶ] doesn't exist in any language. I agree with Canepari's observation (on page 90 here http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/HPh_07_Official_IPA_%26c.pdf ) that the IPA seems to be based on phonological principles, rather than phonetic ones. (He suggests it should more accurately be called the "International Phonemic Alphabet".) Obviously a human voice can produce this vowel (unrounded [U], that is), and I think we've got some evidence for it in English to boot, so why shouldn't we have a symbol for it?
<<The IPA doesn't have a symbol for it, so why should X-SAMPA?>>
I think the IPA should have a symbol for this vowel, so therefore I think X-SAMPA should have a symbol for it. ;-)
X-SAMPA actually does have some symbols for sounds that aren't included in IPA - at least not officially. X-SAMPA has [I\] and [U\], representing near-close central vowels. In IPA these *would* be barred Latin horseshoe u and barred small capital i, but they have no official recognition.
The thing is, my viewpoint is that if there's an omission or flaw in the IPA, we should just make the necessary changes ourselves - to be honest, I don't care so much about what's officially recognized. For example, the IPA lacks symbols for a bilabial approximant and an interdental approximant, both of which are used in Spanish (as you can read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonology_of_the_Spanish_language or in a bunch of other places). I consider this a glaring omission, and I think it's especially ridiculous when we see that there is an IPA symbol for a velar approximant, ɰ. So on the very flimsy precedent of this old Wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAMPA_chart ), I've decided to use the Greek "alternate beta" ( ϐ ) and delta ( δ ) for these sounds. The IPA recently added a symbol for the bilabial trill (a hook-v symbol, which doesn't even exist in Unicode yet) because research had shown that this existed in some small West African languages, but they lack a symbol for two extremely common sounds in one of the world's most spoken languages? I'm not going to wait for some committee to decide that these sounds need symbols.
Sorry, I guess that was a rant. ;-)
<<Latin horseshoe u>>
Sorry, I was going to type "Latin upsilon" but then I decided instead to refer to it by the alternate name "horseshoe u", but I forgot to delete the "Latin".
<<All recordings on Antimoon website in any form have been recorded by Tom who is not an American. He is Polish. Just a minor correction.>>
Oh, okay. But his vowel in "put" and "could" still sounds exactly like the vowel I use. In other words, I definitely have lip rounding there, and so do most people that I know. The unrounded version does stand out to me.
That Canepari chapter was very interesting, though I'm not sure I like his system. There are lots of symbols that could be confused with each other. I like the idea of using different base symbols for different vowel qualities though, instead of diacritics. I always thought it was a bad idea to make 'a' stand for a low front vowel, when 90%+ of the languages that have a non-back low vowel have a central one. There is also a tendency, as Canepari noted, to "jump on the bandwagon" with exotic new sounds. Someone doing field research somewhere suggests that a certain language has voiceless implosives, and the IPA decides that they need a whole set of symbols for them.
I checked John Wells's page on X-SAMPA (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/x-sampa.htm) and it makes no mention of the symbol U\. I sent him an e-mail to ask about his recommendation for unrounded [U], so I guess whatever he says would be close to official.
<<I checked John Wells's page on X-SAMPA (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/x-sampa.htm) and it makes no mention of the symbol U\.>>
He mentions [I\] and [U\] on page 8 here ( http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/ipasam-x.pdf ) though.
<<That Canepari chapter was very interesting, though I'm not sure I like his system.>>
That was basically my impression too. ;-) I think the most appealing part of his system is the comprehensive vowel chart. But he has so many consonant symbols that it would really be hard to learn them all.
One of Canepari's suggestions that I have been thinking about is his suggestion that the most open front vowel is actually [{]. When I do phonetic exercises, making my mouth as open as possible, it seems like I can still produce a vowel that sounds like [{]. So maybe we could redefine [{] to be totally open, and redefine [a] to be basically central (which is already its most common value in practice), and consider the "in-between" sound of Canadian English or Northern (English) English to be near-front. What do you think?
Sorry, roundabout phrasing:
<<One of Canepari's suggestions that I have been thinking about is that...>>
My FOOT is [u]. I notice that it sounds different in England, more like [U].
|