Tristan Mc Leay wrote: > I would be interested to hear anything. I'm just basing that on the > Wikipedia article on the same, which is all I know about Mongolian, and > which is rather thin and potentially of dubious quality. It only says > that "all the vowels of the word" must be the same, and doesn't mention > anything about vowel harmony in the minuscule section on grammar. (It > does, however, observe that "short /o/ is phonetically " (i.e. > close-mid central rounded), but given that all vowels exist in > length-distinguished pairs, and nothing is mentioned about the phonetics > of /o:/, one assumes /o:/ is back, approx. [o:].) That's a funny coincidence, I was just listening to the Routledge Mongolian tapes earlier today, and thought that the sound spelled with the Cyrillic letter that looks like "o" with a line through it sounded quite a bit like . Considering that the IPA symbol for  looks like this Cyrillic letter, I wonder if there's some relation (one borrowed from the other). I do recall that the vowels they were calling "front" vowels didn't sound a bit like front vowels, and that the Cyrillic letter that looks like a capital Y moved downward was pronounced pretty much like /u/ in American English (not a fully back [u], but not far enough forward to be anywhere near [u\], either). I don't recall if there was any difference between short  and the long equivalent, but if anything, the long equivalent of [U] sounded a bit like [o:] (or perhaps [7:]).