Search results for 'tag:Vowels tag:Phonetics' matching tags 'Vowels' and 'Phonetics'

Re: W is a vowel

Forbes — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:05:34 GMT

I am glad we agree about the sound /w/.

That leaves us with the letter <w>.

Letters of the alphabet must not be confused with sounds. By convention and for convenience, letters that represent vowel sounds are called vowels and letters that represent consonant sounds are called consonants. (In the rest of this post when I use the word "vowel" I mean a vowel symbol or letter and use "vowel sound" to refer to sounds.) This does not present any special problem for many languages, but for some, including English, difficulties arise when you begin to look into it. The complexities of English orthography arise, at least in part, because the way it is written is etymological rather than phonetic; that is, writing represents an earlier stage of the language.

Consider the words mat and mate. If asked, most people would have no hesitation in saying that <m> and <t> were consonants and <a> and <e> were vowels. A moment's thought, however, may lead us to ask what the <e> is doing in mate. It clearly has a function in that it changes the vowel sound between the <m> and <t> - mat and mate are pronounced differently. Even so, the <e> has no value on its own - you have to take the whole package of <a> + <C> + <e> = the vowel sound in mate, a fairly regular correspondence.

Consonants also influence the value given to vowels.

Take mating v matting. Here it is the doubling that changes the quality of the vowel sound. Are we justified in saying that there is some indication of "vowelness" in the consonants here?

The vowel sound of bath can be represented in several ways:

bath

harm

palm

etc

The <r> and <l> are not pronounced, but without them we have ham and Pam. Can <r> and <l> be said to be functioning as consonants?

Now consider the letter <k>. It is a consonant most will say. By what is it doing in knot? The <k> does help to show the pronunciation since not is pronounced in the same way. It is true that the presence of the <k> helps to distinguish the two words, but that is coincidental; it is simply the case that the <k> has not been eliminated since the /k/ stopped being pronounced. Are we justified in saying that in knot <k> is a consonant?

I have already noted above that <y> can function to represent (a) the sound /j/ (b) a vowel or dipthong and (c) an element of a dipthong.

<w> does not operate in quite the same way as <y> as (ignoring the rare borrowing from Welsh) it never operates on its own to represent a vowel or dipthong. It can :

(a) represent the sound /w/ in way

(b) combine with another vowel to represent a vowel sound as is law

(c) combine with another vowel to represent a dipthong as is cow

I therefore do not see the problem in saying that <w> has a dual function in writing - it is both a vowel and a consonant.

Re: W is a vowel

shaved — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:45:43 GMT

Forbes
When you say that /w/ does not behave as a vowel you are in a sense correct. It does not behave like a "full" vowel in that it can never form the nucleus of a syllable. However, although it does not behave like a vowel it is formed liked a vowel. It is sometimes described as a "non-syllabic vowel". Whatever we call it, the fact is that it only occurs in positions typically associated with consonants. This is why I said ages ago in this thread that from the phonetic point of view /w/ is a vowel, but from a phonological point of view it functions as a consonant.

I'm glad we agree.. now lets tackle the other part

Forbes
But it is also often the case that the letter <w> does not represent the sound /w/. The word mown is sounded the same as the word moan. <ow> and <oa> are two of the ways in which the vowel sound can be written. The <w> and the <a> both perform exactly the same function. If we are going to insist that in the case of mown <w> functions as a consonant letter, I do not see how we can get round saying that the <a> in moan also functions as a consonant letter.

your example forgets that dipthongs are made up of multiple sounds together. The dipthongs /ow/ and /oa/ have the same sound when used in the words you provide as examples, but that doesn't mean that you can isolate half of each dipthong and then show that they the letters obviously represent the same sound. By that logic, <w> and <a> have the same function and the same soound.

The reason that you can't do that is because the dipthongs themselves are the units of sound. They cannot be broken into their component parts anymore than the letters that represent them can be broken into parts. So /ow/ is a vowel sound, a dipthong more specifically, but that doesn't mean that /o/ + /w/ = /ow/..... but you already knew that.

/ow/ and /aw/ are vowel sounds

/w/ is never a vowel

Re: W is a vowel

Forbes — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:05:25 GMT

When you say that /w/ does not behave as a vowel you are in a sense correct. It does not behave like a "full" vowel in that it can never form the nucleus of a syllable. However, although it does not behave like a vowel it is formed liked a vowel. It is sometimes described as a "non-syllabic vowel". Whatever we call it, the fact is that it only occurs in positions typically associated with consonants. This is why I said ages ago in this thread that from the phonetic point of view /w/ is a vowel, but from a phonological point of view it functions as a consonant.

The preceeding relates to the sound /w/.

The letter <w> is something different.

It is often the case that the letter <w> represents the sound /w/. When it does it is entirely reasonable to say that <w> functions as a consonant letter.

But it is also often the case that the letter <w> does not represent the sound /w/. The word mown is sounded the same as the word moan. <ow> and <oa> are two of the ways in which the vowel sound can be written. The <w> and the <a> both perform exactly the same function. If we are going to insist that in the case of mown <w> functions as a consonant letter, I do not see how we can get round saying that the <a> in moan also functions as a consonant letter.

Words with double consonants

Matsko — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:33:47 GMT

I was wondering what is the rule for the spelling of words that contain double consonants?

For example:

Do I spell the word "recommended" with two Ms or just one? (I am aware that its one M, but why?).

Most of the time you can sound out a word to figure out a repeated consonant or vowel or you can target the syllables. However, since the English language is not a one-to-one phonetic language, then not every scenario is accurate.

What's the golden rule?

Many Thanks.

Re: W is a vowel

Forbes — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:41:45 GMT

shaved
But the line between consonant and vowel is deliberately clear.

I do not think it necessarily is.

If we start with a definition that a vowel is a sound articulated without any obstruction of the vocal tract and that a consonant is a sound that is articulated with an obstruction, then we do not have any difficulty deciding that /a/ is a vowel and /k/ is a consonant. However, some sounds are tricky and are really intermediate, notably /l/ as well as /j/ and /w/. /j/ and /w/ are especially problematic and are variously described as semi-vowels, non-syllabic vowels and approximants. To an extent, how you look at it depends on whether your analysis is phonetic (you are concentrating on how the sound is articulated) or phonological (you are concentrating on how the sound functions). The two approaches are not exclusive.

Another way of defining a consonant is to say that it is a sound that cannot on its own form a syllable; this is suggested by the word itself, etymologically, a sound that is articulated with another. This is how I think a consonant is generally thought of and that is, at least in part, motivated by the fact that English is written with an alphabetic script, that is it analyses speech in segments smaller than syllables. If this definition is followed, then there is no difficulty in regarding /j/ and /w/ as consonants. However, it needs to be borne in mind that, where a language is written in an alphabetic script, the analysis has already been made and this unduly influences the way people think about "letters" - in particular it leads to the confusion of symbol with sound. The problem is particularly acute with English which has more phonemes than there are letters in the alphabet; not only does it exhibit polyvalence (the use of a sign to represent more than one sound, as well as the representation of a sound in more than one way) but it uses it in quite a complex way - just think of mad/made or caning/canning.

The letter <w> is especially versatile:

In want it functions as a consonant according to my second definition

In cow it functions as the second element of a dipthong

In follow it is only really there because English is not keen on words ending in <o>

In wren it is silent

The question "Is w a vowel?" is deceptively simple. When it comes to the sound it depends on how you look at it; when it comes to the symbol it depends on what word it appears in.

the ~ thee

Philip — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:47:49 GMT

Native speaker here, asking for perceptions of other native speakers, especially those who have a basic knowledge of linguistics.

Of course, I know the rule about pronouncing 'the' as 'thee' before vowel sounds: thee afternoon, thee apple, thee orange, thee hour. However, how about when the first vowel sound of the word is 'eee'. I would say the utopian concept, the usual suspects. I believe this is standard. Keep in mind that the first vowel sound of these words is eee rather than u. [Keep in mind I'm using standard English spelling to represent the sounds rather than the International Phonetic Alphabet.]

The real question now: do we actually say thee evening, thee even numbers, thee eventuality or do we say the before these words? I've tried to evaluate my own speech patterns, and I think I use the. Just wondering if I'm alone. Thanks for any ideas.

Re: fair-haired

Kooyeen — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:58:24 GMT

Hi,
the American Pronunciation you found is ok, and Merriam-Webster is the best (in my opinion) to check American pronunciations. The thing is you have to learn how to read phonetic transcriptions in the dictionaries you use, because often every dictionary uses its own conventions. Also, dictionaries don't give perfect and accurate phonetic transcriptions, but they are more like "phonemic transcriptions", if that's the term and I'm not mistaken. I'll give you some examples:

RED - IPA from Longman: /red/ - Wrong! To be accurate, it should be more like /É¹Éd/ or /É»Éd/. Then why isn't it written that way? Because 100% accurate transcriptions are not necessary (but it would be nice if they were given), unless you want to know all the subtle differences between dialectal pronunciations. All dictionaries use /r/ to mean /É¹/, even though /r/ is another kind of R (found in Italian, Scottish, etc.)... but it's not a problem, because it's obvious you have to say /É¹/ instead, since /r/ is not even a native sound in most English varieties.
As for the vowel, /e/, Longman uses it to represent the same vowel as in "bed". Then what's the vowel in "bed"? Well, that's the same vowel as in "led". LOL! In other words, it depends on your dialect. If you use IPA's correct /É/ in those words, then Longman's /e/ actually represents your /É/, and so you'll read Longman's /bed/, /led/, /red/ as /bÉd/, /lÉd/, /É¹Éd/ instead, because Longman is using its own phonemic transcription, which only points out the basic syllables that make up a word, but what they actually sound like depends on your dialect (or the one you chose to use if you are a non-native speaker).

Pter
I think the pronunciation keys in Merriam-Webster are just plain WRONG! It says
\ \ as a in abut
\ \ as u in abut
\ \ as e in kitten
\ r \ as ur/er in further
\ e \ as e in bet
\ \ as ea in easy
\ \ as y in easy

Nope! If you're going to use MW, then you have to follow its conventions if you want to be able to read the transcriptions. If they say /er/ is what they are going to write whenever there's something that sounds like "air", then you have to read /er/ the same way you read /air/, no matter if you read MW's /e/ differently. You have MW's /e/ as in BET, and you have MW's /er/ as in AIR. Those represent basic "bricks" to build words, according MW's conventions, and are not accurate phonetic transcriptions.
My "e" in BED is something like IPA /É/, and for most native speaker AIR is something that can vary from IPA /eÉ¹/ to /ÉÉ¹/ (I think it's usually in between). Longman and MW refer to the AIR phoneme as /er/, but that doesn't mean you have to read it as IPA /eÉ¹/ or anything. As I said, it usually varies form IPA /eÉ¹/ to /ÉÉ¹/, and you say it the way it's natural in your variety.

Pter
? ? ? ? ? It is driving me nuts!

Yeah, I know... I once tried to understand what you're trying to understand now, and I DID go crazy.

GG
Tray saying bee (like the insect) and add then R, and you'll say "beer."

For example, I used to pronounce BEER that way, with an IPA /i/, until Jim made me realize it's usually different, and the vowel is more like like IPA /Éª/. Look it up on MW you'll see they write /bir/, which roughly corresponds to IPA /bÉªr/ (sorry, it that should have been an /É¹/, but I'm sick and tired of it, I'll use /r/ in my transcriptions anyway )

Just my opinion anyway. There are a lot of regional differences, and I admit that transcriptions in dictionaries can be quite confusing for learners if they don't already know the features of the English variety they are learning.

Re: W is a vowel

shaved — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:55:14 GMT

Forbes...

the distinction you're drawing is very nice, but I think the actual question is not phonetic OR phonological in nature. It appears that the OP is asking about the letter itself, not the sounds it represents (in context or out of context).

The OP wants to know why the letter <w> is not considered a vowel even though it appears to him or her that pronouncing the letter in some cases creates a vowel-like sound in addition to the 'normal' <w> sound.

The point I'm making is that the letter <w> never stands alone as a vowel in English. And while it's true that part of the spectrum of sounds represented by that letter contains some 'vowel-like' sounds, that is not enough to remove the letter from the consonant category.

For the English letter <w> to become more than just a consonant, it must be capable of functioning as a vowel on its own.

Until that time, the letter <w> is a consonant in English, and anyone trying to make a case for its semivowel status is just equivocating.

Re: W is a vowel

Forbes — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:09:06 GMT

There are two currents of confusion running through this thread.

The first is that some are confusing symbols with sounds. If you ask an English schoolboy how many vowels there are in English he will say that there are five, and may add that "y" is sometimes a vowel. But there are of course far more than five and a half vowels in English. What we have is six symbols to represent them all, with consonant symbols sometimes providing a clue.

The second arises from the difficulty of deciding what a consonant is. If we start with a provisional definition that a vowel is a sound that is made without any obstruction of the vocal tract and that a consonant is a sound which involves obstruction of the vocal tract, then we have no problem in deciding that /a/ and /o/ are vowels and that /s/ and /t/ are consonants. When we get to sounds like /l/ it becomes a bit trickier. The vocal tract is narrowed, but there is little or no audible friction. The sounds /w/ and /j/ are trickier still as they closely resemble vowels - hence the name semi-vowel. They have their vowel counterparts /u/ and /i/. The fact that the sounds /w/ and /j/ have symbols in the IPA, but that Latin (and other languages) do not have separate symbols for them says a lot about them. It can be difficult to decide if you have a /w/ or an /u/ as well as if you have a /i/ or an /j/

Deciding what you have depends on whether you are making a phonetic analysis, which looks at how the sound is articulated, or a phonological analysis, which looks at how the sound functions. The problem is that your analysis may be influenced by the written form of the language where a decision may have effectively already have been made as to whether the sounds /w/ and /j/ exist in the language. However, as a rule of thumb, you can say that when the sounds /u/ and /i/ form a syllable with another vowel, they are usually written as /w/ and /j/.

Re: W is a vowel

Forbes — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:45:02 GMT

This starts to get involved!

I think it comes down, at least in part, to whether a native speaker's perception of what sounds exist in his language is influenced by how the language is written. In Italian, the sound /w/ hardly ever occurs at the beginning of a word and therefore no need is felt for the sound to have its own letter. It is represented by the letter <u>. Since it is represented by that letter which usually represents a "full" vowel", whenever it is used it is perceived to represent a full vowel. An English speaker, on the other hand will hear words such as "uomo" as /womo/.

I am not a phonetician, but I suspect that if a phonetic analysis is made of the initial sounds of Italian "uomo" and English "woke", that any difference will be found to be quantitative rather than qualitative.