I find it helpful to characterize it in terms of vowel articulation chart: q.v.
“Lax” vowels are the vowel sounds that are enunciated relatively close to the place in the mouth where the tongue sits at rest. “Tense” vowels are the ones that require the tongue to move further out, and so require more effort to enunciate.
The issue of “laziness” is a bit of a puzzler. I’ve heard the Louisiana dialect described as “lazy mouth” but I just can’t quite believe all that mess takes less effort to drag out of your mouth than more formalized English. But there is something to be said for the fact that in English, it’s possible to substitute a lax vowel for a tense one that would otherwise move the tongue in the same direction, and people still perceive the vowel that is intended. For example, when Little Richard recorded the unreleased fast version of Heebie-Jeebies, the vowels have been reduced to where it is actually enunciated more like “hibi-jibis”. But since we know the word, the mere suggestion of the full vowel is sufficient, and using a more lax version allows him to sing faster.
The way a native speaker perceives a language is often not the way it actually is. The fact that English orthography differs so wildly from articulation doesn’t stop people from thinking of English as phonetic, because broadly speaking that way of teaching it works. Obviously English speakers realize there’s something off about the fact that the same letters are enunciated differently in ‘cough’ and ‘dough’. But they are often surprised and incredulous when it is pointed out to them that no one pronounces the first ‘t’ in “West Side Story.” You can do it, if you slow down, but generally you automatically skip it, and hearers automatically fill it in from familiarity, so no one realizes that it has not been pronounced or heard. It is because of an intimate familiarity with the language that this can happen without anyone thinking of it happening that way. So, the way speakers think of a language does not necessarily (or even usually) preclude that there is much more going on.
I’ve seen the rock video before, and I would say they got the sound of the language right on. But since English is my first language anyway, the video sounds pretty plain to me. (It does have a little bit of a Germanic overtone to it.)
Klingon battle songs?
They’re centralized vowels.
Also, whereas we have an R that is pronounced almost like a V (the way I say it anyway) and an L that sounds almost like a W, they have a sound that is neither and in fact is equidistant between the two.
I’m with **acsenray **here. I understand how an L can sound like a W (i.e. a velarized /l/, such as in bell and wool, has significant phonetic commonality with /w/), but can’t figure out how R sounds like V.
Some of us “speak linguist” ( ) … can you describe how your Rs sound like V? How are the articulators in your mouth working when you pronounce Rs? What kind of R – initial, final, C/r/V, V/r/V, V/r/C? Please get as technical as you feel you need to in your description.
They don’t sound like it, just the outside of my mouth is in a similar position. I pronounce R as a velarized, labiodental, slightly rounded approximant. (For the non-linguists reading this, my upper teeth are touching or almost touching the inside of my lower lip and the back of my tongue is up near the soft palate.)
I took this up with my mother once and she does the same thing. She tried saying “rabbit” using a postalveolar approximant (non-lateral) and it sounded more like “labbit”.
Edit to add: I uvularize the L in “bell” or “wool”.
That must be it. For the record, it’s not an exposure thing-- I don’t find I have this problem with German or Russian, but French… SPANISH… I could listen to the most educated Spanish speaker in the world and never be able to pick out individual words without struggling. Average, on-the-street Spanish, I’m doomed until they start swearing
marry has a vowel sound like “bat”
merry has a vowel sound like “bet”
Mary has a vowel sound like “bear” (which is how a lot of people also pronounce marry/merry)
I think this has been taken care of by other posters, but the “marry/merry/Mary” issue is one of the distinctive mergers that linguists use to talk about different accents of English. MIMIM-MINMINM “Mary is marry is merry” versus “Mary is not marry is not merry.”
This is not an issue of imposing Western concepts on an Eastern language. Western and Eastern languages use phonemic inventories in the same way.
Letters/syllabaries/writing/orthography are one thing. Phonemes/sounds/consonants/vowels are a different thing. We use things that look like letters in order to talk about phonemes, but they are very different concepts.
The issue of how Japanese is written or taught is completely separate from the issue of the sounds it uses to convey meaning. It has nothing to do with how Japanese people think about their language, but how sounds are used in the language to distinguish one word from another.
When you look at it from that point of view, Japanese uses vowels and consonants in the same way to distinguish meaning that every other language does, regardless of how it’s written or taught.
Reduced, lax vowels may seem “lazy” to non-native speakers, but I agree the vowel system in general is pretty acrobatic in English, especially in the Southern U.S. I wouldn’t say, though, that the degree of formality is the issue. It’s just the dialect.
Just to illustrate the concept of a phoneme, take for example, the pair man and men. In most English dialects, these two words can be distinguished based on the sound alone /mæn/ /mɛn/. By eliminating what they have in common, we reveal the sound elements that make the difference: /æ/ /ɛ/. These are thus two phonemes in the phonemic inventory of English. And this is independent of how they are spelled, written, thought of, or, even to some extent, pronounced. Because in most English dialects these two phonemes exist, even though they might not be pronounced in the way they’re written. For example, in one dialect, they might manifest as [miən] and [mɪn]. If this is the case, then [iə] is said to be a morpheme of the phoneme /æ/ and [ɪ] is a morpheme of the phoneme /ɛ/.
Japanese works in exactly the same way, regardless of how its writing system works. For example, you take the pair obi and oshi. You eliminate what they have in common and you uncover the fact that Japanese has the two phonemes ** and [ʃ], because these are the elements that create the perceivable difference between the two words.
This system that keeps being touted still seems arbitrary. If I pronounce man as [meən] (as is common here), the only reason you can call it /mæn/ is that I still think of it as being the same word. I consider [eə] before [n] as being the same vowel as [æ] before any other consonant. And why do I think that? Because that’s how I spell it. Otherwise [mæn] used by somebody else could just be a different word.
And then you get into the even odder trouble where two words are pronounced the same way, but spelled differently. Why aren’t these different definitions of the same word? Why aren’t Mary merry and marry considered the same word in places where they are merged? Because the spelling means we think of them as separate words.
Seems to me like what we think about our language, and how we spell or write the words does have something to do with this system of phonemes and morphemes.
Is it so hard to understand why someone would find it arbitrary that this not extend to a country that (hypothetically) would consider [ʃi] and [bi] as separate sounds, even though we hear them as the same? Again, someone not versed in English would think Mary, merry and Mary have all their phonemes in common, even though we would disagree.
No, it’s not because of spelling. When you speak with another person, you don’t know how or even if that person is spelling words. You think of it as the same sound because you’ve heard that sound being freely used for the other without making any difference in meaning.
Well, it depends on what you mean by “word.” Phonologically, they are the same word. If they are indistinguishable on the basis of sound alone, then by definition, they are using the same phonemes.
You’re confusing two different issues here. Phonologically, they are the same word, depending on what you mean by “word.”
Nope. The question of phonemes and morphemes is a scientific examination of whether speakers of a language use particular sounds in a manner that distinguishes meaning. Spelling is 100 percent irrelevant.
Or, to put it another way, humans speak before they write–usually at about 1-1/2 years of age. It’s not as though the writing system informs that speech. Yes, for lexicon that is acquired later through literacy alone, the writing might affect the way an individual tries to produce language at first, but that’s idiosyncratic.
I think because many people often are first introduced to new languages through print, they seem to think the opposite–that a language exists first as a writing system, which speakers then somehow have to interpret in order speak and understand. The idea then gets carried over even when they refer to their own language as they communicate about it.
As a result, people will write about (or post), for example, the “E sound in English,” which is kind of a meaningless thing to put in print. (“Short E” and “long E,” as though English had only 10 vowels, isn’t helpful either.) A lot of this comes from reading instruction, where teachers are trying to help children identify words by matching their written representation with the sounds children already know from their natural speech.
But it also causes people to apply this misguided idea when “teaching” English (or simply describing it) to speakers of other languages. Thus we get notions such as the “silent E,” which is silly since ALL letters are silent. It’s not as though ink on a page or pixels on a screen can make sound.
The written representation of a language rarely dictates how people use it in its natural, spoken form.
