tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post3199523551393740666..comments2024-03-17T09:14:13.950+00:00Comments on John Wells’s phonetic blog: the Lindsey systemJohn Wellshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-69025064953596212642013-03-09T00:58:33.231+00:002013-03-09T00:58:33.231+00:00fə joo lɑɑst kwɛstʃn, jɵw kɵd sɪj ðə ðɪs vɪdɪjəw h...fə joo lɑɑst kwɛstʃn, jɵw kɵd sɪj ðə ðɪs vɪdɪjəw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN9ywVglcCkJahid Akonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11286572916487046087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-44331879185204012572012-03-18T08:57:46.492+00:002012-03-18T08:57:46.492+00:00(Ɑjm əɡən at mɑj ɑjpejɛj kejood!)
Ən ənstrɛst /ɪ/...(Ɑjm əɡən at mɑj ɑjpejɛj kejood!)<br /><br />Ən ənstrɛst /ɪ/ fɔləwd bɑj ə seŋɡəl kɔnsənənt – əz en <i>Millone</i> – stel fejlz ənlɑjkle tɵ mej. Mɑj səspeʃən ez ðat /ɪ/ ez nɛsəsrele fɔləwd bɑj ə kləstə (<i>Miltone</i>, <i>Miljone</i> etsɛtrə) ənd ðət befoor ə seŋɡəl kɔnsənənt, əwnle frej vɑwəlz kan əkəə (<i>Milone</i>, <i>Melone</i>). Ef ðat səspeʃən ez trɵw, nəw ɔpəzeʃən wɵd bej pɔsebəl.<br /><br />Əf koos, ə trɵw ɔpəzeʃən betwejn /ɪ/ ənd /e/ dəzənt hav tɵ bej en dʒəəmən. Ɑjd bej vɛre hape tɵ sej eɡzampəlz frɔm əðə laŋɡwedʒez (ef Ladefəwɡed ənd Madezən prɔvɑjd nəw sətʃ eɡzampləz, et dəzənt ðɛj dəwnt eɡzest).j. mach wusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12757552978906347033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-2182841551548503352012-03-18T07:43:20.807+00:002012-03-18T07:43:20.807+00:00The short close phonemes are marginal, of course, ...The short close phonemes are marginal, of course, but where they exist, /e/ is different from /ɪ/, unless you're speaking a Ripuarian dialect of the "Setzen Se sech" variety. How about <i>Melone</i> and *<i>Millone</i>?Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-56218435977655946392012-03-17T19:40:23.759+00:002012-03-17T19:40:23.759+00:00Short answer: That's an easy one: I would doub...Short answer: That's an easy one: I would doubt that! ;-)<br /><br />Long answer: The status of unstressed vowels in learned or loaned words is marginal at best. I suspect that unstressed syllables in such words may have a complementary distribution of /eː/ (shortened to [e]) and /ɪ/ (using the traditional transcription without phonetic base): /eː/ never before consonant clusters, /ɪ/ only before consonant clusters. At least, a word like <i>*ginnom</i> feels unlikely to me and I can think of no likely example.<br /><br />Perhaps <i>Million</i> vs. <i>*Melion</i>? To me it feels like if there is any distinction between the two words, then it is rather a distinction of syllable cut, that is, with the /l/ in <i>Million</i> being closely tied to a preceding /ɪ/, giving rise to something like /mɪlˈjoːn/ [melˈjoːn] – again a consonant cluster –, while /l/ <i>*Melion</i> would have a loose tie to the preceding sound, thus giving rise to a trisyllabic pronunciation /meːliːˈoːn/ [meliˈjoːn]. So the example is no good because of the possible [lj] cluster. Any suggestions for an unstressed /ɪ/ not followed by a cluster?j. mach wusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12757552978906347033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-32282912108106805372012-03-17T19:00:35.840+00:002012-03-17T19:00:35.840+00:00I'm not sure this is correct on a purely phone...I'm not sure this is correct on a purely phonetic level, but anyway: what do you make of short /e/ in learned words and loans? <i>G<b>e</b>nom</i> is different from <i>*ginnom</i> and *<i>gehnom</i>.Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-52946604736981760002012-03-17T18:49:36.215+00:002012-03-17T18:49:36.215+00:00(Sorry, I don't have my IPA keyboard layout av...(Sorry, I don't have my IPA keyboard layout available at the moment.)<br /><br />Why, I don't doubt that the German phonemes traditionally transcribed as /ɪ/ and /eː/ are distinct phonemes. I am just saying that there is no <i>phonetic</i> reason for using two distinct signs -- you might as well write /e/ and /eː/. Indeed, I think I have seen formant analysis that proved German /ɪ/ to be at least as open or even slightly more open than /eː/ -- exactly the opposite of what the traditional suggests.<br /><br />Of course, there is more to transcription than just phonetics, but also the association of phoneme pairs that Kilian has pointed out. However, this does not justify the choice of two distinct signs. What are the other of "plenty of good reasons", Kilian? I can imagine tradition, the mere availability of the [ɪ] sign, or the wish for having one-sign transcriptions for all phonemes (without [ː]). I agree that all of these are valid reasons, but none of them is a phonetic reason that would justify a distinct [ɪ] sign.<br /><br />Imagine the IPA had no [ɪ] sign (only [i] and [e]) and German were not a well-known Middle European language, but an exotic Middle New Guinea language. Would the suggestion to introduce a new IPA sign [ɪ] for the description of that language stand any chance? Of course not, since people would rightly point out that there is no need for a new IPA sign. The existing signs [i] and [e] along with [ː] are perfectly sufficient for transcribing the exotic Middle New Guinea language known as German: /iː/ /e/ /eː/ (even though that obscures some consonant pairs, but hey, exotic vowel systems have exotic pairs). You might as well repeat the same story with English or other European languages. That's the IPA's traditional bias towards European for you.<br /><br />I have now done the homeworks and looked through Ladefoged and Maddieson's (1996) <i>The Sounds of the World's Languages</i>. They mention no distinctive /ɪ/, but only systems with distinctions of /i/ /e/ /ɛ/ (or /i/ /ɪ/ /ɛ/). While they mention one possible language with a five height vowel system (without confirmation), even that language has only the distinction between /i/ /e/ /ɛ/ (p. 289 s., Amstetten Bavarian dialect).j. mach wusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12757552978906347033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-40149781703183738122012-03-15T13:55:01.532+00:002012-03-15T13:55:01.532+00:00David
I have seen/heard part of the Howard interv...David<br /><br />I have seen/heard part of the Howard interview by Paxman and I can only say: Heavens beware us from learning/teaching English pronunciation from such flickers. Howard's face is a 'dead pan', one almost thinks he suffers from an ailment or such. The overall impression is very very off-putting, at least on me, to put it mildly.Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-35987633410781038322012-03-15T11:32:07.818+00:002012-03-15T11:32:07.818+00:00@j. mach wust: I find it rather silly to say that ...@j. mach wust: I find it rather silly to say that /I/ and /e/ aren't distinguished in German because there's more to the phonemes than height alone. It is very clear that they are separate phonemes, and there's plenty of good reason to ascribe them different phonetic symbols, especially because /I/ pairs with /i/, and /e/ with /E/, not /e/ with /I/.Kilian Hekhuishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01084720179158650652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-72411826706404820062012-03-15T07:49:47.051+00:002012-03-15T07:49:47.051+00:00@Army1987:
If you wanted to distinguish STRUT and...@Army1987:<br /><br />If you wanted to distinguish STRUT and schwa but otherwise stay within the spirit of the Lindsey system, then /ɜ/ for STRUT, /ɜɜ/ for NURSE and /ɜw/ for GOAT might be a reasonable solution. This way the /ə/ symbol really would only occur in unstressed syllables, with occasional exceptions such as one pronunciation of "Ms" or where a weak form gets stressed, which I do sometimes.<br /><br />For my own accent, which I think is close to but not really part of (too Northern, though I don't have FOOT=STRUT) the family of accents he's talking about, I do want a schwa/STRUT distinction.<br /><br />I do think that if ɵ and ə are confusingly similar then that is a fault of the IPA not of Geoff Lindsey. He does seem to be describing a vowel very much in the area of the IPA symbol ɵ.JHJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03257258313943639485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-35777869557236410382012-03-15T07:24:12.459+00:002012-03-15T07:24:12.459+00:00I know seem to understand why mr. j. mach wust ref...I know seem to understand why mr. j. mach wust referred to Indoeuropean languages as 'dialects': he is a germanophone Swiss and thus for him language is by definition dialect. The Germanophone Swiss speak various dialects, a dialect, for instance St. Galler Swiss-German, is their first language, so small wonder that they have a tendency to see all languages as 'dialects'. I must add that I personally quite like Swiss German 'dialects'. Other than that, a language is just a dialect with an army and a navy, as a Jewish-Russian I believe linguist once put it... . Doesn't quite work for Luxemburghish, for they don't have a navy (or do they?)<br /><br />I am saying this of course a bit tongue in cheek, but not quite...Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-33844056039146514232012-03-15T07:12:41.241+00:002012-03-15T07:12:41.241+00:00Ad Ed
Ad primum: yes, that is exactly why the Pol...Ad Ed<br /><br />Ad primum: yes, that is exactly why the Polish habit (and not just Polish) of equating STRUT with /a/ has always infuriated me, and why I have been opposing it all my lifetime.<br /><br /><br />Ad secundum: no I have not realised (how far the glottal stop has spread in Britain), I am going by my impressions based on scanty materials. I have never had much exposure to living British speech). But I believe you of course.Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-11768209173144390662012-03-14T23:45:09.776+00:002012-03-14T23:45:09.776+00:00There are plenty of speakers in the English midlan...There are plenty of speakers in the English midlands and in Wales who have identical qualities in the two syllables of <i>fungus</i>.John Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-49779802887544360332012-03-14T19:32:25.257+00:002012-03-14T19:32:25.257+00:00@ Wojciech: The merger of STRUT with schwa may be ...@ Wojciech: The merger of STRUT with schwa may be confined to only a few areas (e.g. Wales), but it would not cause any misunderstandings across Britain (and probably not anywhere in the English-speaking world). However, using [a] for STRUT does cause misunderstandings (especially in the north of England) and should be avoided.<br /><br />In addition, I don't think that you've realised how far the glottal stop has spread in Britain. The transcriptions in the comments are not using it especially often. It is very widespread for /t/ when not at the start of a syllable and there is no sign of the trend's being reversed. I remember reading in Petyt (1985) how the glottal stop had become very widespread in Huddersfield, where it had not previously existed, within just a generation.Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04081841460525341333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-84721051594405171542012-03-14T19:28:57.159+00:002012-03-14T19:28:57.159+00:00Army1987
the trouble is, we do use it for NURSE m...Army1987<br /><br />the trouble is, we do use it for NURSE most of the time. <br /><br /><br />David<br /><br />OK, I understand and least of all am I inclined to think that phonetic transciption by itself can teach anything. I am privately quite happy with the traditional transcription. But as I have written earlier on, part of the blame for the wrong pronunciation of STRUT by most Poles is carried by the traditional symbol for that vowel, which is perhaps all too suggestive of /a/.Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-83755993042733373912012-03-14T17:56:09.592+00:002012-03-14T17:56:09.592+00:00Wojciech
As I keep insisting, phonetic transcript...Wojciech<br /><br />As I keep insisting, phonetic transcription can't help students who haven't already mastered the sound in question. (Students of a language, that is. It's completely different for students of phonetics.)<br /><br />I strongly suspect that there are many students who will never derive any help from it.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-85829412647344653792012-03-14T17:15:26.273+00:002012-03-14T17:15:26.273+00:00Maybe someone should invent another symbol, not re...<i>Maybe someone should invent another symbol, not reminiscent of either the above or the schwa symbol.</i><br /><br />WTH would be wrong with /ɜ/ for STRUT (provided we don't use it for NURSE too, but WTH would be wrong with /əː/ for NURSE?)?army1987https://www.blogger.com/profile/01166052755101226806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-37303613171715208602012-03-14T13:40:38.010+00:002012-03-14T13:40:38.010+00:00David
Polish students make an /a/ out of STRUT, w...David<br /><br />Polish students make an /a/ out of STRUT, whatever little or much they hear of modern RP makes them make an /a/ out of TRAP as well, and given that they hear General American most of the time they also make an /a/ out of LOT. Cat, cut, cot = /kat/. In this sense I agree with your FIRST and SECOND above. The symbol /ʌ/ has deplorably come to signify (if anything, then) an /a/ to them too, it also looks like a funny 'A' without the horizontal bar. For this reason, the Lindseyan merger of STRUT and schwa, tho' false in and by itself, even in America, could have (had) beneficial didactic uses, like for instance making them aware that STRUT is not really an /a/.Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-18012656634072868932012-03-14T11:28:13.429+00:002012-03-14T11:28:13.429+00:00Wojciech
actually, they do confuse it [STRUT] wit...Wojciech<br /><br /><i>actually, they do confuse it [STRUT] with TRAP, that's the problem. </i><br /><br />And the only way i can see transcription being of any help is if:<br /><br />FIRST <br />Teachers demonstrate the different sounds and give students plenty of practice.<br /><br />SECOND <br />Students are frequently reminded of what has been taught by the symbol <i>ʌ</i> for STRUT words. It doesn't matter what symbol is used for TRAP words, providing that it is different. For your students there seems to be a case for persisting with <i>æ</i>.<br /><br />I'm not saying that Lindsey's system is 'crazy'. It's an elegant solution to the <b><i>wrong</i></b> problem.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-14711018284511897682012-03-14T08:26:31.862+00:002012-03-14T08:26:31.862+00:00John W, can you tell us?John W, can you tell us?Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-83725296984279661392012-03-14T07:49:11.649+00:002012-03-14T07:49:11.649+00:00David
'Actually an a pronunciation isn't ...David<br /><br />'Actually an a pronunciation isn't such a disaster — provided that students don't confuse it with TRAP, PALM, BATH or commA.'<br /><br />actually, they do confuse it [STRUT] with TRAP, that's the problem. <br /><br />I agree that the Lindseyan transcription is sort of weird, and I too am in favour of the colon. I just tried to do justice to Mr. Lindsey, pointing out that his method is not _that_ crazy as it might seem.Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-71050325825219903262012-03-14T00:43:31.537+00:002012-03-14T00:43:31.537+00:00our people (Pl) tend to pronounce the latter vowel...<i>our people (Pl) tend to pronounce the latter vowel as /a/, ('tend' is an understatement here)</i><br /><br />That's precisely why I'd like them to have <b>ʌ</b> before them as a constant reminder that it should be kept free from the memory of anything related to anything in the orthography. <br /><br />Actually an <b>a</b> pronunciation isn't such a disaster — provided that students don't confuse it with TRAP, PALM, BATH or commA. Confusion with FOOT wouldn't matter — if it wasn't something stigmatised (by some) in native speakers.<br /><br />The transcription can't <b><i>teach</i></b> a suitable pronunciation — at least not in the sort of classrooms that I've experienced. But it can remind students of what the teacher has taught them.<br /><br /><i>In our spelling we have quite a few 'aj's and 'ej's</i> <br /><br />But not <b>ɑj</b>s and <b>ɛj</b>s, that was my point.<br /><br /><i>The Dutch are famous for their 'ij's (/ɛj/, actually).</i><br /><br />Again, not <i>ɪj</i>. And the <b>ɛj</b> value is a distinct hindrance, not a help at all.<br /><br /><i>They too have double vowels, as do Germans, albeit to a smaller degree.</i><br /><br />I've forgotten what Dutch or Afrkaans I ever knew. I'm familiar with German <i>aa</i> (and, of course, the word <i>Afrikaans</i>) and German <i>ee</i>. Again they don't use <i>ɑ</i> or <i>ɛ</i>, and in the latter case the spelling is reminiscent of the wrong sort of e-sound. Plus the fact that <i>ee</i>, like <i>oo</i>, is a digraph in English spelling with unhelpful sound-correspondences.<br /><br /><i>i:, u:, ɔ:</i> may not be ideal, and <i>a:, e:, o:</i> are actually misleading to some extent. Nevertheless, the colon convention is less distracting than a new symbol to be learned and the symbols are only <b><i>similar to</i></b> spellings, in no case identical. <br /><br />Using <i>ɑ:</i> rather than <i>a:</i> is an improvement — closer to what phoneticians do — without being too much of a distraction to the student as he or she gets a better grasp of phonetics. the same goes for using <i>ɑ, ɛ, ɪ</i> in diphthongs. The same goes for using <i>ʊ</i> rather than <i>u</i>.<br /><br />The NEAR and SQUARE vowels call out for a <i>ə</i> element for when we represent the intervocalic (including linking-r) value. I used to be happy with <i>iə</i> and <i>eə</i>, but the adjusted vowel symbols are more 'accurate' and don't get in the way of recognition by students.<br /><br />Frankly, any attempt to represent the GOAT vowel is going to place a learning load on students. Some things are difficult because they're difficult, which I think is the case here. So I suppose it's best to seize the nettle — get the difficulty over quickly by learning the symbol early, whatever it is. Either that or stick with the misleading <i>o:</i>.<br /><br />An extra bonus is that any representation with <b>:</b> or two letters points unequivocally to a stressed value. It would be nice if a similar set of symbols pointed to unstressed vowels. This is only possible with <i>ə</i>— all the more reason to reserve the symbol for the commA (or lettER) vowel.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-72217049556091750932012-03-13T22:06:42.257+00:002012-03-13T22:06:42.257+00:00No. Word-internal /ə/ is for most AmE speakers [ə]...No. Word-internal /ə/ is for most AmE speakers [ə], a true mid-central vowel. STRUT on the other hand is usually more retracted and/or more open than [ə], somewhere between [ɐ] and [ʌ], or [ɤ] and [ʌ]. For some speakers, it is closer to [ɜ], which is still more open than [ə] is, though the audible difference is not so huge between them, it's realitvely easy to misidentify them.<br />In a word like <i>fungus</i> the two vowels are qualitatively different. I really doubt any speaker pronounces the first vowel as close as [ə] in spontaneous speech.<br />In a word like <i>umbra</i> before a pause, the two vowels are most likely identical: both are STRUT, neither [ə].teardrophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08558731895978834662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-58459290510968473112012-03-13T21:41:45.810+00:002012-03-13T21:41:45.810+00:00'The ʌ~ə distinction may not be as real as we ...'The ʌ~ə distinction may not be as real as we pretend, but it helps to remind students to avoid GOOSE and FOOT and to assign stress or not as appropriate'\<br /><br /><br />much as the Lindseyan collapsing of STRUT into schwa displeases me, I'd observe here that our people (Pl) tend to pronounce the latter vowel as /a/, ('tend' is an understatement here), thereby merging it with TRAP, sadly, the culprit being in part the symbol 'ʌ', which looks like a funny 'a' to them. Maybe someone should invent another symbol, not reminiscent of either the above or the schwa symbol.<br /><br />In our spelling we have quite a few 'aj's and 'ej's and 'oj's. Swedes too employ 'ej', for instance in 'mej' (me), 'dej', (thee), 'tjej', (girl), 'tejp' (tape, esp. adhesive tape) and a few others. ɑj, ɛj are different, I know, but they are close enough to suggest the right pronunciation. The Dutch are famous for their 'ij's (/ɛj/, actually). They too have double vowels, as do Germans, albeit to a smaller degree. The Lindseyan cause is not yet lost.Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-13579619596486343242012-03-13T21:26:48.562+00:002012-03-13T21:26:48.562+00:00'I asked my wife whether she thought it would ...'I asked my wife whether she thought it would help Russian students to mark the light and clear l's in transcription. She thinks not.'<br /><br />in Russian all 'l', unless post-iotised (if I may coin a word) are dark. Hence small wonder. In Polish by contrast, at least in 'good' Polish, all of them are clear. Our people say 'well' with a clear l, deplorably. To them, a marked distinction in transcription would be helpful, I'd insist.<br /><br />Re gənə, OK, I've got your point.Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-37569754706442232862012-03-13T21:08:22.706+00:002012-03-13T21:08:22.706+00:00CORRRECTION
It may be a bit if a fiction that ə i...CORRRECTION<br /><br /><i>It may be a bit if a fiction that ə is exclusively a short vowel in English, but it's a very useful myth.</i><br /><br />Sorry! What I meant to say is <i>exclusively an <b>unstressed</b> vowel</i>.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.com