At 09:32 AM 04/08/2000 -0300, Caio Rossi wrote: >I wrote: > > >> pure vowels are produced with no > >> obstacles in the mouth, > >> so that the air can flow freely through it. > >and Isabelle commented: > > >I think this is wrong. I find no difference in my [y] > >and [i] besides the shape of the lips. Both have the > >high [i] tongue, and neither has any obstacle in the > >mouth. In fact, the production is EXACTLY the same, > >with the lips rounded forward for [y]. > > > >So I would say that [y] is just as "pure," by your > >definition, as [i] or any of the other 7 Italian > >vowels. > >and I'm talking back :-) : > >OK...but, don't you think that they must have different phonetic symbols for >some reason? The rounding of the lips is not everything. If your /i/ above >is the same /i/ as in 'beat', not as in 'bit', so you should bear in mind >it's actually a dyphthong ( assuming you're a native speaker of English ),
Caio: I think [y] in the previous thread refers to the French u or German ü, both of which are pure vowels, and not the English/Spanish semivowel y. I'm pretty sure no one was claiming semivowels as pure vowels. For singing purposes, semivowels are consonants.
But, getting back to your current point: Sometimes you can't believe everything you read in a book on phonetics. In particular, as a native speaker of American English, and a linguist, I'm positive there's little or no glide in my pronunciation of "beat," "be," or "beef," and such glide as there is is either caused by anticipation of the following consonant or by a sort of mimicking of the pitch pattern. In particular there's no tendency to glide up to a y at the end, since the main vowel is already in that position, but rather to fall away to an uh, in anticipation of the t in "beat" or the f in "beef".
If there's any tendency to glide INTO the vowel, it happens too fast for me to detect in myself, and if I try to do it slowly, with an on-glide, it quickly turns into something that's not English, sounding rather like the Russian "Byt'" (to be) and then with further slowing, it starts sounding somewhat like the English word "bite."
Nevertheless, my "beat" is completely distinct from my "bit." There is no doubt in my mind that the glide, if it occurs in some speakers, is due to a slow-moving tongue, and phonemically inoperative, and that the operative factor is the (highest) position of the tongue. (High for "beat, medium-low for "bit"), though there's also a difference in the position and tension of the lips, which is not phonemic in itself, but aids in enunciation, and becomes important in singing those words, but for tone rather than recognition. Also, if angry, one might pronounce "bit" with the lip position of "beat," and in so doing sound angry or tense, without affecting the recognition of the sound - as long as the tongue is in the right place.
|