Paul Bennett wrote:
 >
 > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 04:45:23 +0100, Rene Uittenbogaard
 > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 >
 > > (somewhere between [&] and [6]
 >
 > That is incontravertably [a].

Sorry, but both [&] and [6] are not as open as [a]. It's definitely
not [a] and I think [&\], too, is too open. See also the vowel
diagram below.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Henrik Theiling wrote:
 > Hi!
 >
 > Rene Uittenbogaard <[log in to unmask]> writes:
 >
 > > As for the first half of |ui|: the way I pronounce it, it
 > > definitely starts more open than [@].  Some vowel diagrams I have
 > > seen indicate that the beginning of |ui| should be even more open
 > > than [9] (somewhere between [&] and [6] (but rounded)).
 >
 > Aha!  So its a bit fronted?  That's interesting.  Concerning the
 > openness, when I try to be overly correct, I sometimes use [3\Y], so
 > the tendency to a more open vowel I can feel, too.  I have no idea if
 > that is ok, though...

The openness of [3\Y] is not at all exaggerated.
I've tried a lot of |ui|'s now, and I'm convinced now that the vowel
diagrams in my pronunciation book were more accurate than I was. The
book shows |ui| to begin more open than with the [9] that I told you
before. They also put the end of |ui| more open. In a vowel diagram (not
all vowels filled in):

  [y]-----[u\]-----[u]
    \ [Y]      [U]  |
    [2]-**-[8]-----[o]
      \     [@]     |
      [9]---[3]----[O]
       [&] * [6]    |
        [a]--------[A]

The beginning of |ui| is marked by the asterisk, and the end with two
asterisks. This is what the book says, and it agrees with my
pronunciation.

But I guess that if someone used [3\Y] or [9Y] or [6Y] or [&_OY] (this
[&_O] being rounded [&]), that would be acceptible as well. There just
aren't many Dutch vowels in the region between [9] and [6].

 > > Also, IMO pronouncing it as [8Y] brings it dangerously close to
 > > (and could probably be mistaken for) [2] (which is also pronounced
 > > a bit as a diphtong [2Y]).
 >
 > Right, that makes sense.

I also discovered that Dutch |eu| is a bit more central than [2],
so [@Y] probably also has the risk of being mistaken for [2Y].

Apparently I was misled by the IPA symbols in the "standard" vowel
diagrams which put [2] and [9] at the frontmost positions. |eu| is often
indicated with IPA symbol [2], despite the fact that it is more central.
|ui| is often indicated with [9y], while in fact it, too, is more
central and more open.

 > > And [v] or [v_0]? I've repeated the word several times now, and I
 > > think you're right there. I've always considered my pronunciation to
 > > be [v], but you leave me wondering how I normally pronounce my v's,
 > > and if it is dependent on position. Hmm :)
 >
 > Have you tried to compare something like
 >
 >    fier   vs. vier  vs. wier ?
 >
 > Is it [f] vs. [v_0] vs. [v]
 >    or [f] vs. [v]   vs. [w]?
 >
 > Or something else?

I think it is [f] - [v_0] - [v\].

Strange - I've known for a long time that there is a difference between
[z] and my Dutch /z/, though I have never been able to put my finger on
the exact difference. Now that you point out that [f] is different from
[v_0], and now that I understand the difference, I also know what is
"wrong" with my Dutch /z/ (it's [z_0]) :)

 > PPS:
 > Een gravengraf is een graf waar een graaf in ligt begraven.
 > Als in Graven graven gravengraven graven, graven graven gravengraven.

I didn't know that one :)
I realize now that I tend to replace the combination [XR\] with
voiceless [R\_0]. Hmmm. It's weird to find out so many new things about
your own pronunciation :)

Thanks,

René