tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post2693948610964062711..comments2024-03-17T09:14:13.950+00:00Comments on John Wells’s phonetic blog: ooh!John Wellshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-80143554712411218602012-02-26T00:37:25.750+00:002012-02-26T00:37:25.750+00:00I used to find cardinal 8 easier to teach to Brits...I used to find cardinal 8 easier to teach to Brits back in the days when Tunes decongestant sweets had TV ads like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhnKjR0ESPs<br />The sweets not only unblocked the nose but also shifted one's vowels towards conservative R.P. Each ad used to end with a cardinal 8 demo like the one at 0:26 of the YouTube clip.Geoff Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03801874423150269748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-36485591950871557562012-02-20T22:08:19.780+00:002012-02-20T22:08:19.780+00:00the german pronunciation is [ʔu:hu], with a glotta...the german pronunciation is [ʔu:hu], with a glottal stop before the first vowel :-)Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06843898644738363781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-51758605033366459702012-02-18T02:17:35.600+00:002012-02-18T02:17:35.600+00:00What do you mean by "extra-back"? I tho...What do you mean by "extra-back"? I thought [o] by definition was as back as a vowel could be.Jason Reidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15399373762677357587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-65929842691095586432012-02-18T00:20:02.276+00:002012-02-18T00:20:02.276+00:00I guess that may be true, but the London/Estuary T...I guess that may be true, but the London/Estuary THOUGHT vowel seems so different to me from an Italian or German [o] -- typically pharyngealized, extra-back, and/or over-rounded -- that it just doesn't seem anything like, say, an Italian or German [o] to me.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-44090408670647668042012-02-17T23:26:21.628+00:002012-02-17T23:26:21.628+00:00Many of them have a THOUGHT vowel that approaches ...Many of them have a THOUGHT vowel that approaches [o:].Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04081841460525341333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-91998461294709989872012-02-17T21:34:44.413+00:002012-02-17T21:34:44.413+00:00And English phonetics too happens to have the limi...And English phonetics too happens to have the limited use or the large gap in its parallel orthography, like for expressing the variants of the ‘ooh’, for example. I found it difficult to transcribe the universal natural semantics of various expressions of ‘ooh’ as in (is that right?), (it’s hurt), (it’s a bad sensation), (it’s surprising), and so on….<br /><br />But by the time L1 children are entering to formal schooling, their being happens to have already acquired the fluent pronunciations of all these differences just as well most words of dally uses. Interestingly my first boss too, like the norms of all the bosses of the village in those days (who couldn’t usually read or write) not only speaks error less phonetics but also speaks with all the eight cases according to the Tamil grammar and its phonotactic realization, viz., nominative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive, locative and vocative in accordance with their synthetic modifications. Then, what emphasizes in both dimensions here is the nature-nurture issue on mere a natural physiological foundation for cognitive endowment than having the issue emphasized on formal schooling.<br /><br />….On the literature here, however, it is certainly interesting to know how and why the /y/ got in to the kind of lip rounding for the emphasis where areas the use /ʉː/ and /uː/ were more usual, which is otherwise (if not tensed) understandable as very close to the diphthong [aɪ] or of a bit less on the F2. Also, what is analogically complicated is to understand why the in ‘wall’ is a consonant, since it has all the similar features of a vowel in terms of its turbulence than of a consonant whose predominant features are the manners of obstruction and constriction.LangLinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14326820272652746118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-2245074351118305702012-02-17T16:15:02.966+00:002012-02-17T16:15:02.966+00:00How do you teach students from Southern England to...How do you teach students from Southern England to pronounce [o]?vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-10740883529872064012012-02-17T14:06:56.904+00:002012-02-17T14:06:56.904+00:00Thanks. Fixed. (I ought to have checked. The unwan...Thanks. Fixed. (I ought to have checked. The unwanted break was inserted by Blogger, not by me. But I know how to remove it, and have done so.)John Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-26466781611905902022012-02-17T11:31:44.191+00:002012-02-17T11:31:44.191+00:00The articulation of darkness or brightness of [u]-...The articulation of darkness or brightness of [u]-like vowels is more complicated. Yes, more rounding will darken them. But backing won't. Slight backing and fronting of velars doesn't work (see the work of Fant and of Stevens). What does work is tongue blade elevation or depression - more depression means darker. The brighter versions of [u] you hear in so many dialects of English come from tongue blade elevation - compare pronunciations of toot and poop. They aren't "fronted velars", to be precise they are fully velar AND laminal.Sidney Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01138711082469220983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-22881165017645351512012-02-17T10:40:06.900+00:002012-02-17T10:40:06.900+00:00Link to DJ file needs correcting. For
<a href=...Link to DJ file needs correcting. For<br /><br /><a href="http://www.let.uu.nl/~audiufon/sounds/8l.wav<br />">Here’s</a><br /> <br /> read<br /><br /><a href="http://www.let.uu.nl/~audiufon/sounds/8l.wav">Here’s</a><br /><br />-- <br />SteveSteve Doerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18210787261745134371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-86690257909285758722012-02-17T09:50:55.221+00:002012-02-17T09:50:55.221+00:00Thanks. So, of all the sounds, that's what Stu...Thanks. So, of all the sounds, that's what <i>Stuhl</i> and <i>stool</i> have in common.<br /><br />(Semantically, the overlap is probably limited to the medical euphemism…)Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-38036347912672080602012-02-17T09:46:00.288+00:002012-02-17T09:46:00.288+00:00The t in Stuhl is actually unaspirated in the soun...The t in <i>Stuhl</i> is actually unaspirated in the sound clip. Listen to it! And see <i>Deutsches Aussprachewörterbuch</i> p. 76, apropos Stuhl: "es folgt jedoch meist kein Hauchgeräusch".John Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-51574334936462947952012-02-17T09:24:23.792+00:002012-02-17T09:24:23.792+00:00The t in Stuhl would be aspirated, wouldn't it...The t in <i>Stuhl</i> would be aspirated, wouldn't it?<br /><br />(I understand why you write it like that, but in light of languages like Russian, I find <b>lʲ</b> for the German or English non-dark l irritating.)Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.com