Talk:Open front rounded vowel
|WikiProject Linguistics / Phonetics|
It's not analyzed as an [ɶ] in Swedish. This was simply a matter of me misreading my literature and I'm correcting the fault in Swedish phonology as well. This can be confirmed by referencing Fonetikens grunder by Olle Engstrand, professor of phonetics at University of Stockholm, Svenskans fonologi by Claes Garlén and Funktionell svensk grammatik by Maria Bolander. They all describe the sound as a lowered [œ].
If you want to be picky, it's also an allophone of /ø/, since vowel contrast in Swedish is actually considered to be a matter of quantity rather than quality. Both short and long /ø/ are described with the same [œ̞].
- I'm starting to think that this vowel is just too hard to pronounce to actually be used in natural langauges. Do we have any kind of reference as to its usage? It would be interesting to read up on it. I'm going to see if I can find some kind of detailed vowel charts of the Swedish sound to see where the Swedish linguists have placed it.
- Peter Isotalo 21:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- I remember reading (Ladefoged I believe) that this has only been reported from southern German (Swiss, Bavarian, Austrian?), but that these claims have been disputed. I was the one who put the warning on the IPA page for that reason. (One of those weird IPA letters that doesn't seem to be justified by being confirmed as phonemic before it gets a symbol.) Perhaps really [œ̞], as in Swedish, or else allophonic? I haven't looked closely into this, though.
- In SOWL, fig. 9.10 (p 290 in my edition), the Amstetten dialect of Bavarian is shown with four rounded front vowels, paired as [i y], [e ø], [ɛ œ], [æ ɶ]. There is no rounded version of [a], which BTW is clearly central rather than front, and is much lower than [æ, ɶ]. kwami 00:15, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
- Lowered [œ] means more or less the same as raised [ɶ]. I don't see any problem with using this symbol. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- And it seems that Dutch also has it. Could anyone explain it or put it into the article or whatever? Ciacchi 23:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that would be the start vowel of <ui>? CodeCat 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I am no specialist, but is "veux" pronounced differently in French Canada than peu and boeuf, which I have been taught it was [pø] and [bø]? As a native Québécois speaker, I doubt it. If they do sound the same, than this article contradicts what we find in the ø article. ---Marc
- As far as I can tell "veux" & "voeux" are both /vø/, while "un boeuf" is [bœf] (though unrounded /œ/ is allophonic), "des boeufs" is [bø], and "peu" is [pø]. - Io Katai 13:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I am a native speaker of Acadian French, and I have [ɶ] as an allophone of /œ/ when it precedes /ʁ/. (And actually the allophone of /ʁ/ used in my dialect at the end of a word like that is an approximant [ʁ̞].--Sonjaaa (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I dont think this article contradicts itself because the vowel in question seems to occur as an allophone only and not as a phoneme. It is therefore still a real vowel, just not one with a phonemic status. Solejheyen (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This sound is totally beyond me, but one thing I can gather is that the sound file in no way resembles Darth Vader exhaling. Was that just a joke, or is the sound file wrong?
BRAVO. That comparison sounds completely ridiculous. Breathing noises do not involve vocal cords vibrating, which is necessary to make a vowel. I have erased it pending a good reason to keep it in. --Dupes 03:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I was about to delete the Swedish reference because the Swedish phonology article cited to support it, doesn't. Then I saw that this was discussed here in 2005, and one contributor said he was going to remove the sound from the Swedish phonology article as well as the Swedish reference from this one, and others disagreed. Well, the situation now is that the two articles are contradictory. Can folks please come to agreement and align the two articles? —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Doing so might reflect a POV bias. It would also be difficult to source statements about its non-occurrence in English. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 23:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)