En réponse à "H. S. Teoh" <[log in to unmask]>:

> OK, so I think [A] is still what I think it is. *Phew*. :-P  So [Q]
> and
> [O] are rounded versions of [A]...

Oops! As Tristan rightly said, an unrounded vowel can have only *one* rounded
version. [O] has nothing to do with [A]. It's at the same level as [E], as I
explained in a previous mail.

 but I'm not sure I know the
> difference
> yet. I've tried listening to IPA sound samples, but they contradict
> each
> other so I really am quite suspicious of IPA vowels ATM. :-/

The IPA vowels themselves are nothing to be suspicious about. They are
precisely described and this is all you need to know about them. But you're
allowed to be suspicious of the speakers that pronounce them ;))) . Also, you
may be suspicious of your own ear. Remember that you will tend to overlook
(or "overhear"?) distinctions you were not trained to listen to. Mind you, it
took me ten years to understand what the distinction between [i] and [I] was,
and to learn to hear it, so don't feel too bad if you can't hear the difference
between [O] and [Q] ;))) .


It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.