Question about nasal vowels in IPA











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Probably a silly question, but why are there no nasal vowels in IPA charts? Should we assume that nasal vowels are placed in the same position as the corresponding oral vowels in the vocal chart? So for example /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?










share|improve this question


















  • 1




    Right. It's a different mode of articulation but all else remains more or less the same. You might reasonably ask why [m] is not therefore written as [b] with a tilde... Besides historical reasons (which sounds were phonemic in the languages whose alphabets contributed to the IPA) you might also consider that a nasal consonant differs from a stop more than a nasal vowel from an oral vowel.
    – Luke Sawczak
    Nov 27 at 13:39















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Probably a silly question, but why are there no nasal vowels in IPA charts? Should we assume that nasal vowels are placed in the same position as the corresponding oral vowels in the vocal chart? So for example /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?










share|improve this question


















  • 1




    Right. It's a different mode of articulation but all else remains more or less the same. You might reasonably ask why [m] is not therefore written as [b] with a tilde... Besides historical reasons (which sounds were phonemic in the languages whose alphabets contributed to the IPA) you might also consider that a nasal consonant differs from a stop more than a nasal vowel from an oral vowel.
    – Luke Sawczak
    Nov 27 at 13:39













up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











Probably a silly question, but why are there no nasal vowels in IPA charts? Should we assume that nasal vowels are placed in the same position as the corresponding oral vowels in the vocal chart? So for example /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?










share|improve this question













Probably a silly question, but why are there no nasal vowels in IPA charts? Should we assume that nasal vowels are placed in the same position as the corresponding oral vowels in the vocal chart? So for example /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?







phonology ipa






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 27 at 13:14









lmc

1617




1617








  • 1




    Right. It's a different mode of articulation but all else remains more or less the same. You might reasonably ask why [m] is not therefore written as [b] with a tilde... Besides historical reasons (which sounds were phonemic in the languages whose alphabets contributed to the IPA) you might also consider that a nasal consonant differs from a stop more than a nasal vowel from an oral vowel.
    – Luke Sawczak
    Nov 27 at 13:39














  • 1




    Right. It's a different mode of articulation but all else remains more or less the same. You might reasonably ask why [m] is not therefore written as [b] with a tilde... Besides historical reasons (which sounds were phonemic in the languages whose alphabets contributed to the IPA) you might also consider that a nasal consonant differs from a stop more than a nasal vowel from an oral vowel.
    – Luke Sawczak
    Nov 27 at 13:39








1




1




Right. It's a different mode of articulation but all else remains more or less the same. You might reasonably ask why [m] is not therefore written as [b] with a tilde... Besides historical reasons (which sounds were phonemic in the languages whose alphabets contributed to the IPA) you might also consider that a nasal consonant differs from a stop more than a nasal vowel from an oral vowel.
– Luke Sawczak
Nov 27 at 13:39




Right. It's a different mode of articulation but all else remains more or less the same. You might reasonably ask why [m] is not therefore written as [b] with a tilde... Besides historical reasons (which sounds were phonemic in the languages whose alphabets contributed to the IPA) you might also consider that a nasal consonant differs from a stop more than a nasal vowel from an oral vowel.
– Luke Sawczak
Nov 27 at 13:39










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted











/ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?




Generic IPA charts don't show you where phonemes are; they show you where phones are. The standard convention would be that [ɛ̃] is where [ɛ] is. (I don't know enough about phonetics to say whether nasalization causes any predictable distortions to the first and second formants of a vowel.)



That does not mean that /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is for any particular language. French, one of the most well-known languages with nasal vowels, does not have a straightforward equivalence between the qualities of the nasal vowel phonemes and the qualities oral vowel phonemes transcribed with the "same" letters. In a typical Parisian accent, /ɛ̃/ is often opener than /ɛ/ (I've read suggestions that a more accurate transcription would be /æ̃/). The French nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɔ̃/ can reportedly have a phonetic value more like [õ] for many speakers in France, and the nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɑ̃/ may apparently be realized with some degree of rounding, so something like [ɒ̃].



On the other hand, Wikipedia says




In Quebec French, two of the vowels shift in a different direction: /ɔ̃/ → [õ], more or less as in Europe, but /ɛ̃/ → [ẽ] and /ɑ̃/ → [ã].







share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Good catch. Since its inception, one of the IPA's core principles has been that each phoneme in languages around the world should be given a separate IPA letter. The first of the original 1888 principles stated:




    There should be a separate sign for each distinctive sound; that is, for each sound which, being used instead of another, in the same language, can change the meaning of a word.




    As you pointed out, this would mean that nasal vowels, aspirated plosives, affricates etc. must also be assigned separate letters because they certainly are distinctive in many languages. But they have never been given separate letters (save for some obsolete letters for affricates), and to do so would have cluttered the alphabet considerably. Although the 1888 principles stated "The alphabet should consist ... as few new letters as possible being used", this apparent discrepancy was not explicitly addressed by the Association until the 1989 overhaul of the alphabet and its principles. At the Kiel Convention of 1989, the IPA revised the principles, which said in part:




    It is not possible to dispense entirely with diacritics. The International Phonetic Association recommends that their use be limited as far as possible to the following cases:

    (i) For denoting length, stress and pitch.

    (ii) For representing minute shades of sounds.

    (iii) When the introduction of a single diacritic obviates the necessity for designing a number of new symbols (as, for instance, in the representation of nasalized vowels).




    So there. Creating a separate symbol for each phoneme ever found in any language of the world would very soon render the IPA chart pretty unwieldy. So in general, the IPA has, since the 1979 revision, opted for a more simple and efficient set of symbols and diacritics, disposing of superfluous and/or seldom-used letters and diacritics like [ƾ] ( = [ts]) and [ɼ] ( = [r̝]).






    share|improve this answer





















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "312"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f29767%2fquestion-about-nasal-vowels-in-ipa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      3
      down vote



      accepted











      /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?




      Generic IPA charts don't show you where phonemes are; they show you where phones are. The standard convention would be that [ɛ̃] is where [ɛ] is. (I don't know enough about phonetics to say whether nasalization causes any predictable distortions to the first and second formants of a vowel.)



      That does not mean that /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is for any particular language. French, one of the most well-known languages with nasal vowels, does not have a straightforward equivalence between the qualities of the nasal vowel phonemes and the qualities oral vowel phonemes transcribed with the "same" letters. In a typical Parisian accent, /ɛ̃/ is often opener than /ɛ/ (I've read suggestions that a more accurate transcription would be /æ̃/). The French nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɔ̃/ can reportedly have a phonetic value more like [õ] for many speakers in France, and the nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɑ̃/ may apparently be realized with some degree of rounding, so something like [ɒ̃].



      On the other hand, Wikipedia says




      In Quebec French, two of the vowels shift in a different direction: /ɔ̃/ → [õ], more or less as in Europe, but /ɛ̃/ → [ẽ] and /ɑ̃/ → [ã].







      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        3
        down vote



        accepted











        /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?




        Generic IPA charts don't show you where phonemes are; they show you where phones are. The standard convention would be that [ɛ̃] is where [ɛ] is. (I don't know enough about phonetics to say whether nasalization causes any predictable distortions to the first and second formants of a vowel.)



        That does not mean that /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is for any particular language. French, one of the most well-known languages with nasal vowels, does not have a straightforward equivalence between the qualities of the nasal vowel phonemes and the qualities oral vowel phonemes transcribed with the "same" letters. In a typical Parisian accent, /ɛ̃/ is often opener than /ɛ/ (I've read suggestions that a more accurate transcription would be /æ̃/). The French nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɔ̃/ can reportedly have a phonetic value more like [õ] for many speakers in France, and the nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɑ̃/ may apparently be realized with some degree of rounding, so something like [ɒ̃].



        On the other hand, Wikipedia says




        In Quebec French, two of the vowels shift in a different direction: /ɔ̃/ → [õ], more or less as in Europe, but /ɛ̃/ → [ẽ] and /ɑ̃/ → [ã].







        share|improve this answer























          up vote
          3
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          3
          down vote



          accepted







          /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?




          Generic IPA charts don't show you where phonemes are; they show you where phones are. The standard convention would be that [ɛ̃] is where [ɛ] is. (I don't know enough about phonetics to say whether nasalization causes any predictable distortions to the first and second formants of a vowel.)



          That does not mean that /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is for any particular language. French, one of the most well-known languages with nasal vowels, does not have a straightforward equivalence between the qualities of the nasal vowel phonemes and the qualities oral vowel phonemes transcribed with the "same" letters. In a typical Parisian accent, /ɛ̃/ is often opener than /ɛ/ (I've read suggestions that a more accurate transcription would be /æ̃/). The French nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɔ̃/ can reportedly have a phonetic value more like [õ] for many speakers in France, and the nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɑ̃/ may apparently be realized with some degree of rounding, so something like [ɒ̃].



          On the other hand, Wikipedia says




          In Quebec French, two of the vowels shift in a different direction: /ɔ̃/ → [õ], more or less as in Europe, but /ɛ̃/ → [ẽ] and /ɑ̃/ → [ã].







          share|improve this answer













          /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?




          Generic IPA charts don't show you where phonemes are; they show you where phones are. The standard convention would be that [ɛ̃] is where [ɛ] is. (I don't know enough about phonetics to say whether nasalization causes any predictable distortions to the first and second formants of a vowel.)



          That does not mean that /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is for any particular language. French, one of the most well-known languages with nasal vowels, does not have a straightforward equivalence between the qualities of the nasal vowel phonemes and the qualities oral vowel phonemes transcribed with the "same" letters. In a typical Parisian accent, /ɛ̃/ is often opener than /ɛ/ (I've read suggestions that a more accurate transcription would be /æ̃/). The French nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɔ̃/ can reportedly have a phonetic value more like [õ] for many speakers in France, and the nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɑ̃/ may apparently be realized with some degree of rounding, so something like [ɒ̃].



          On the other hand, Wikipedia says




          In Quebec French, two of the vowels shift in a different direction: /ɔ̃/ → [õ], more or less as in Europe, but /ɛ̃/ → [ẽ] and /ɑ̃/ → [ã].








          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 27 at 14:08









          sumelic

          7,92611744




          7,92611744






















              up vote
              1
              down vote













              Good catch. Since its inception, one of the IPA's core principles has been that each phoneme in languages around the world should be given a separate IPA letter. The first of the original 1888 principles stated:




              There should be a separate sign for each distinctive sound; that is, for each sound which, being used instead of another, in the same language, can change the meaning of a word.




              As you pointed out, this would mean that nasal vowels, aspirated plosives, affricates etc. must also be assigned separate letters because they certainly are distinctive in many languages. But they have never been given separate letters (save for some obsolete letters for affricates), and to do so would have cluttered the alphabet considerably. Although the 1888 principles stated "The alphabet should consist ... as few new letters as possible being used", this apparent discrepancy was not explicitly addressed by the Association until the 1989 overhaul of the alphabet and its principles. At the Kiel Convention of 1989, the IPA revised the principles, which said in part:




              It is not possible to dispense entirely with diacritics. The International Phonetic Association recommends that their use be limited as far as possible to the following cases:

              (i) For denoting length, stress and pitch.

              (ii) For representing minute shades of sounds.

              (iii) When the introduction of a single diacritic obviates the necessity for designing a number of new symbols (as, for instance, in the representation of nasalized vowels).




              So there. Creating a separate symbol for each phoneme ever found in any language of the world would very soon render the IPA chart pretty unwieldy. So in general, the IPA has, since the 1979 revision, opted for a more simple and efficient set of symbols and diacritics, disposing of superfluous and/or seldom-used letters and diacritics like [ƾ] ( = [ts]) and [ɼ] ( = [r̝]).






              share|improve this answer

























                up vote
                1
                down vote













                Good catch. Since its inception, one of the IPA's core principles has been that each phoneme in languages around the world should be given a separate IPA letter. The first of the original 1888 principles stated:




                There should be a separate sign for each distinctive sound; that is, for each sound which, being used instead of another, in the same language, can change the meaning of a word.




                As you pointed out, this would mean that nasal vowels, aspirated plosives, affricates etc. must also be assigned separate letters because they certainly are distinctive in many languages. But they have never been given separate letters (save for some obsolete letters for affricates), and to do so would have cluttered the alphabet considerably. Although the 1888 principles stated "The alphabet should consist ... as few new letters as possible being used", this apparent discrepancy was not explicitly addressed by the Association until the 1989 overhaul of the alphabet and its principles. At the Kiel Convention of 1989, the IPA revised the principles, which said in part:




                It is not possible to dispense entirely with diacritics. The International Phonetic Association recommends that their use be limited as far as possible to the following cases:

                (i) For denoting length, stress and pitch.

                (ii) For representing minute shades of sounds.

                (iii) When the introduction of a single diacritic obviates the necessity for designing a number of new symbols (as, for instance, in the representation of nasalized vowels).




                So there. Creating a separate symbol for each phoneme ever found in any language of the world would very soon render the IPA chart pretty unwieldy. So in general, the IPA has, since the 1979 revision, opted for a more simple and efficient set of symbols and diacritics, disposing of superfluous and/or seldom-used letters and diacritics like [ƾ] ( = [ts]) and [ɼ] ( = [r̝]).






                share|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote









                  Good catch. Since its inception, one of the IPA's core principles has been that each phoneme in languages around the world should be given a separate IPA letter. The first of the original 1888 principles stated:




                  There should be a separate sign for each distinctive sound; that is, for each sound which, being used instead of another, in the same language, can change the meaning of a word.




                  As you pointed out, this would mean that nasal vowels, aspirated plosives, affricates etc. must also be assigned separate letters because they certainly are distinctive in many languages. But they have never been given separate letters (save for some obsolete letters for affricates), and to do so would have cluttered the alphabet considerably. Although the 1888 principles stated "The alphabet should consist ... as few new letters as possible being used", this apparent discrepancy was not explicitly addressed by the Association until the 1989 overhaul of the alphabet and its principles. At the Kiel Convention of 1989, the IPA revised the principles, which said in part:




                  It is not possible to dispense entirely with diacritics. The International Phonetic Association recommends that their use be limited as far as possible to the following cases:

                  (i) For denoting length, stress and pitch.

                  (ii) For representing minute shades of sounds.

                  (iii) When the introduction of a single diacritic obviates the necessity for designing a number of new symbols (as, for instance, in the representation of nasalized vowels).




                  So there. Creating a separate symbol for each phoneme ever found in any language of the world would very soon render the IPA chart pretty unwieldy. So in general, the IPA has, since the 1979 revision, opted for a more simple and efficient set of symbols and diacritics, disposing of superfluous and/or seldom-used letters and diacritics like [ƾ] ( = [ts]) and [ɼ] ( = [r̝]).






                  share|improve this answer












                  Good catch. Since its inception, one of the IPA's core principles has been that each phoneme in languages around the world should be given a separate IPA letter. The first of the original 1888 principles stated:




                  There should be a separate sign for each distinctive sound; that is, for each sound which, being used instead of another, in the same language, can change the meaning of a word.




                  As you pointed out, this would mean that nasal vowels, aspirated plosives, affricates etc. must also be assigned separate letters because they certainly are distinctive in many languages. But they have never been given separate letters (save for some obsolete letters for affricates), and to do so would have cluttered the alphabet considerably. Although the 1888 principles stated "The alphabet should consist ... as few new letters as possible being used", this apparent discrepancy was not explicitly addressed by the Association until the 1989 overhaul of the alphabet and its principles. At the Kiel Convention of 1989, the IPA revised the principles, which said in part:




                  It is not possible to dispense entirely with diacritics. The International Phonetic Association recommends that their use be limited as far as possible to the following cases:

                  (i) For denoting length, stress and pitch.

                  (ii) For representing minute shades of sounds.

                  (iii) When the introduction of a single diacritic obviates the necessity for designing a number of new symbols (as, for instance, in the representation of nasalized vowels).




                  So there. Creating a separate symbol for each phoneme ever found in any language of the world would very soon render the IPA chart pretty unwieldy. So in general, the IPA has, since the 1979 revision, opted for a more simple and efficient set of symbols and diacritics, disposing of superfluous and/or seldom-used letters and diacritics like [ƾ] ( = [ts]) and [ɼ] ( = [r̝]).







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 27 at 17:42









                  Nardog

                  718313




                  718313






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Linguistics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f29767%2fquestion-about-nasal-vowels-in-ipa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Plaza Victoria

                      Puebla de Zaragoza

                      Musa