Talk:Open front rounded vowel

In Swedish

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].

Peter ^Isotalo 16:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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. --89.79.88.109 (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Danish

According to this page, it occurs in Danish. Ciacchi 16:52, 31 July 2006 (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)

French Canadian

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)

Vader?

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)

Breathing noises do not involve vocal cords vibrating, which is necessary to make a vowel. No, it's not necessary - vowels can be voiceless. The following is a quotation from Russian phonology#Other changes:

"In weakly stressed positions, vowels may become voiceless between two voiceless consonants: выставка [ˈvɨstə̥fkə]^ⓘ ('exhibition'), потому что [pə̥tɐˈmu ʂtə]^ⓘ ('because'). This may also happen in cases where only the following consonant is voiceless: череп [t͡ɕerʲɪ̥p]^ⓘ ('skull')." Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any language in which vowel voicing is contrastive. In such cases, the voiceless one would either turn into a fricative (voiceless approximants are by definition inaudible) articulated in the same place as the vowel, e.g. [ɑ̥] -> [ħ], [ɯ̥] -> [x], [i̥] -> [ç], (or, at least in some positions, voiced [ʕ, ɣ, ʝ]) or the contrast would simply cease to exist, removing the voiceless vowel from the phonemic inventory of the language.

John C. Wells. "John Wells's phonetic blog: [h]: fricative or approximant?".

— Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 23:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Swedish revisited

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)

English

This is the only vowel on the IPA chart no one's ever claimed occurs in English. I thought it deserved some kind of special mention. --Lfdder (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Doing so might reflect a POV bias. It would also be difficult to source statements about its non-occurrence in English. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I was kidding. Maybe you are too? This is too meta for me. :-( --Lfdder (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh! I couldn't tell. Some things are lost in text. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

There are zero sources I can find about anyone else doing this but let it be known I compress /ɔɪ/ to [ɶˤ] in rapid speech. Célestine-Edelweiß (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Leiden accent of Dutch

It's the local realisation of ui (standard [œʏ̯] or [ɜʏ̯]. I don't have a source, so I won't add it. But you can hear it in this song in the first lines of the chorus (zuipen doe je uit gevulde glazen).

Font problem?

In the default font in which Wikipedia text is displayed, at least for me, the letter ɶ looks exactly the same as œ. This seems to be a problem, especially since the article frequently compares and contrasts open [ɶ] vs. open-mid [œ]. Is there any way to solve this problem? AJD (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

display issue

the symbol displays identically to that for [œ] on here, so there are a whole lot of passages that talk about "the contrast between [œ] and [œ]" which display as the same letter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omoutuazn (talk • contribs) 11:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

What OS/browser/font are you using? (And please sign your comments.) Nardog (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I made the same comment two years ago (see above); I'm currently using Safari 14.02 on MacOS Big Sur, and it has the same problem in Firefox 88.0.1. The font appears to just be Helvetica. They don't look the same in the edit box (which uses some mono-spaced font)—⟨ɶ⟩ is small caps, ⟨œ⟩ is lowercase—but when I click "publish changes" they will render on the talk page in Helvetica as visually the same character for me. AJD (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ajd: On Firefox, when you right click on the big "ɶ" in the infobox, select "Inspect", and open the "Fonts" tab (here's how), what does "Fonts Used" say? Nardog (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said, Helvetica. AJD (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ajd: That's what Firefox says? Weird. I suspected it to be a problem with the OS's fallback but that suggests the font itself is flawed. It's even weirder I can hardly find reports on the internet despite it being such a glaring issue... Nardog (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Same issue in Safari on my iPad, by the way. AJD (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)