Mixing
Why r, h, and w aren't vowels
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
The r sound I can create (a) without moving my tongue (after it is put into place), and (b), without closing the mouth cavity entirely. Like rrrr.... To me then it seems like a vowel.
For h, it is basically an unvoiced vowel.
For w, it made by rounding my lips, like one. In that sense it seems like a vowel.
Wondering why they are considered consonants instead.
vowels consonants
asked 2 days ago
Lance Pollard
494210
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
The r sound I can create (a) without moving my tongue (after it is put into place), and (b), without closing the mouth cavity entirely. Like rrrr.... To me then it seems like a vowel.
For h, it is basically an unvoiced vowel.
For w, it made by rounding my lips, like one. In that sense it seems like a vowel.
Wondering why they are considered consonants instead.
vowels consonants
asked 2 days ago
Lance Pollard
494210
3
For [h], see the previous question "Why is /h/ called voiceless vowel phonetically, and /h/ consonant phonologically?" For [w], see "What is the phonetic and phonemic destinction between a semivowel and a vowel?" For [r], see Can a vowel be a consonant? and Do some dialects of English have a liquid vowels, such as /ɹ/ and /ɫ/?
– sumelic
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
The r sound I can create (a) without moving my tongue (after it is put into place), and (b), without closing the mouth cavity entirely. Like rrrr.... To me then it seems like a vowel.
For h, it is basically an unvoiced vowel.
For w, it made by rounding my lips, like one. In that sense it seems like a vowel.
Wondering why they are considered consonants instead.
vowels consonants
asked 2 days ago
Lance Pollard
494210
The r sound I can create (a) without moving my tongue (after it is put into place), and (b), without closing the mouth cavity entirely. Like rrrr.... To me then it seems like a vowel.
For h, it is basically an unvoiced vowel.
For w, it made by rounding my lips, like one. In that sense it seems like a vowel.
Wondering why they are considered consonants instead.
vowels consonants
vowels consonants
asked 2 days ago
Lance Pollard
494210
asked 2 days ago
Lance Pollard
494210
asked 2 days ago
Lance Pollard
494210
asked 2 days ago
Lance Pollard
494210
asked 2 days ago
Lance Pollard
494210
494210
3
For [h], see the previous question "Why is /h/ called voiceless vowel phonetically, and /h/ consonant phonologically?" For [w], see "What is the phonetic and phonemic destinction between a semivowel and a vowel?" For [r], see Can a vowel be a consonant? and Do some dialects of English have a liquid vowels, such as /ɹ/ and /ɫ/?
– sumelic
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
3
For [h], see the previous question "Why is /h/ called voiceless vowel phonetically, and /h/ consonant phonologically?" For [w], see "What is the phonetic and phonemic destinction between a semivowel and a vowel?" For [r], see Can a vowel be a consonant? and Do some dialects of English have a liquid vowels, such as /ɹ/ and /ɫ/?
– sumelic
2 days ago
3
3
For [h], see the previous question "Why is /h/ called voiceless vowel phonetically, and /h/ consonant phonologically?" For [w], see "What is the phonetic and phonemic destinction between a semivowel and a vowel?" For [r], see Can a vowel be a consonant? and Do some dialects of English have a liquid vowels, such as /ɹ/ and /ɫ/?
– sumelic
2 days ago
For [h], see the previous question "Why is /h/ called voiceless vowel phonetically, and /h/ consonant phonologically?" For [w], see "What is the phonetic and phonemic destinction between a semivowel and a vowel?" For [r], see Can a vowel be a consonant? and Do some dialects of English have a liquid vowels, such as /ɹ/ and /ɫ/?
– sumelic
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
The International Phonetic Alphabet draws a very arbitrary distinction between consonants and vowels, and categorizes them completely separately. But in truth, there's not any major phonetic difference between [w] and [u].
In actuality, the main difference between /u/ and /w/ is /u/ is the nucleus of a syllable, /w/ isn't. In other words, every syllable is a "vowel" in the middle, potentially with some "consonants" on either side, and this is the only thing that reliably distinguishes them.
This feature is called syllabicity, as in, "vowels" are syllabic, "consonants" aren't. Many languages have both a syllabic and a non-syllabic version of the same sound: if you speak General American English, you have six such pairs, m n r l j w.
The IPA encodes five of these pairs with separate letters: j~i w~u ʕ~ɑ ɰ~ɯ ɥ~y. For all the rest, you can mark the consonant with a line (m̩) or mark the vowel with a curve (e̯) to switch its syllabicity on or off.
answered 2 days ago
Draconis
6,441731
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
The letters [r,w,h] conventionally refer to "consonants", specifically, non-syllabic segments, whereas [r̩,u] refer to syllabic segments ("vowels"). Similarly, [j] is a consonant, [i] is a vowel – but [j,i] are the same except for that difference (and also, [m,n] are non-syllabic, [m̩,n̩] are syllabic). [h] is a bit of a problem because it has no unique syllabic variant that can be articulated on its own, nut in a sequence like [ha, hi], [h] is phonetically a voiceless version of the following sonorant segment, so you could transcribe "ha" as [ḁa], "hi" as [j̥i].
The terms "consonants" and "vowel" are confusing since they are used in multiple ways. Sometimes, "consonant" vs "vowel" refers to syllable structure pattern, in which case [h,r,j,s,l,p...] are "consonants" and [a,r̩,i,l̩] are "vowels" (usually nobody calls [l̩] a vowel but [r̩] is often called a vowel, in English). But if you are talking about the decree of constriction in a sound, then the terminology changes. This is recognized in some theories of phonological features sucha s the SPE theory, where "consonantal" refers to a particular degree of constriction and "syllabic" refers to syllable-structure function. So [h,j,w] are non-consonantal, but non-syllabic; [a,i,u] are non-consonantal and syllabic; [m,l,p,s] are consonantal and non-syllabic; finally, [m̩,n̩,l̩] are sonsonantal and syllabic. The standard definition of "consonantal" is "a segment with more mid-sagittal constriction that that of [j]".
Versions of r add one other complication. American English r is generally an approximant [ɹ] and not [r], and it is non-consonantal which can be syllabic or not. In other languages like Serbian, Croatian and Sanskrit, there is a syllabic version of [r], thus [r̩].
answered 2 days ago
user6726
28.6k11654
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
The International Phonetic Alphabet draws a very arbitrary distinction between consonants and vowels, and categorizes them completely separately. But in truth, there's not any major phonetic difference between [w] and [u].
In actuality, the main difference between /u/ and /w/ is /u/ is the nucleus of a syllable, /w/ isn't. In other words, every syllable is a "vowel" in the middle, potentially with some "consonants" on either side, and this is the only thing that reliably distinguishes them.
This feature is called syllabicity, as in, "vowels" are syllabic, "consonants" aren't. Many languages have both a syllabic and a non-syllabic version of the same sound: if you speak General American English, you have six such pairs, m n r l j w.
The IPA encodes five of these pairs with separate letters: j~i w~u ʕ~ɑ ɰ~ɯ ɥ~y. For all the rest, you can mark the consonant with a line (m̩) or mark the vowel with a curve (e̯) to switch its syllabicity on or off.
answered 2 days ago
Draconis
6,441731
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
The International Phonetic Alphabet draws a very arbitrary distinction between consonants and vowels, and categorizes them completely separately. But in truth, there's not any major phonetic difference between [w] and [u].
In actuality, the main difference between /u/ and /w/ is /u/ is the nucleus of a syllable, /w/ isn't. In other words, every syllable is a "vowel" in the middle, potentially with some "consonants" on either side, and this is the only thing that reliably distinguishes them.
This feature is called syllabicity, as in, "vowels" are syllabic, "consonants" aren't. Many languages have both a syllabic and a non-syllabic version of the same sound: if you speak General American English, you have six such pairs, m n r l j w.
The IPA encodes five of these pairs with separate letters: j~i w~u ʕ~ɑ ɰ~ɯ ɥ~y. For all the rest, you can mark the consonant with a line (m̩) or mark the vowel with a curve (e̯) to switch its syllabicity on or off.
answered 2 days ago
Draconis
6,441731
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
The International Phonetic Alphabet draws a very arbitrary distinction between consonants and vowels, and categorizes them completely separately. But in truth, there's not any major phonetic difference between [w] and [u].
In actuality, the main difference between /u/ and /w/ is /u/ is the nucleus of a syllable, /w/ isn't. In other words, every syllable is a "vowel" in the middle, potentially with some "consonants" on either side, and this is the only thing that reliably distinguishes them.
This feature is called syllabicity, as in, "vowels" are syllabic, "consonants" aren't. Many languages have both a syllabic and a non-syllabic version of the same sound: if you speak General American English, you have six such pairs, m n r l j w.
The IPA encodes five of these pairs with separate letters: j~i w~u ʕ~ɑ ɰ~ɯ ɥ~y. For all the rest, you can mark the consonant with a line (m̩) or mark the vowel with a curve (e̯) to switch its syllabicity on or off.
answered 2 days ago
Draconis
6,441731
The International Phonetic Alphabet draws a very arbitrary distinction between consonants and vowels, and categorizes them completely separately. But in truth, there's not any major phonetic difference between [w] and [u].
In actuality, the main difference between /u/ and /w/ is /u/ is the nucleus of a syllable, /w/ isn't. In other words, every syllable is a "vowel" in the middle, potentially with some "consonants" on either side, and this is the only thing that reliably distinguishes them.
This feature is called syllabicity, as in, "vowels" are syllabic, "consonants" aren't. Many languages have both a syllabic and a non-syllabic version of the same sound: if you speak General American English, you have six such pairs, m n r l j w.
The IPA encodes five of these pairs with separate letters: j~i w~u ʕ~ɑ ɰ~ɯ ɥ~y. For all the rest, you can mark the consonant with a line (m̩) or mark the vowel with a curve (e̯) to switch its syllabicity on or off.
answered 2 days ago
Draconis
6,441731
answered 2 days ago
Draconis
6,441731
answered 2 days ago
Draconis
6,441731
answered 2 days ago
Draconis
6,441731
6,441731
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
The letters [r,w,h] conventionally refer to "consonants", specifically, non-syllabic segments, whereas [r̩,u] refer to syllabic segments ("vowels"). Similarly, [j] is a consonant, [i] is a vowel – but [j,i] are the same except for that difference (and also, [m,n] are non-syllabic, [m̩,n̩] are syllabic). [h] is a bit of a problem because it has no unique syllabic variant that can be articulated on its own, nut in a sequence like [ha, hi], [h] is phonetically a voiceless version of the following sonorant segment, so you could transcribe "ha" as [ḁa], "hi" as [j̥i].
The terms "consonants" and "vowel" are confusing since they are used in multiple ways. Sometimes, "consonant" vs "vowel" refers to syllable structure pattern, in which case [h,r,j,s,l,p...] are "consonants" and [a,r̩,i,l̩] are "vowels" (usually nobody calls [l̩] a vowel but [r̩] is often called a vowel, in English). But if you are talking about the decree of constriction in a sound, then the terminology changes. This is recognized in some theories of phonological features sucha s the SPE theory, where "consonantal" refers to a particular degree of constriction and "syllabic" refers to syllable-structure function. So [h,j,w] are non-consonantal, but non-syllabic; [a,i,u] are non-consonantal and syllabic; [m,l,p,s] are consonantal and non-syllabic; finally, [m̩,n̩,l̩] are sonsonantal and syllabic. The standard definition of "consonantal" is "a segment with more mid-sagittal constriction that that of [j]".
Versions of r add one other complication. American English r is generally an approximant [ɹ] and not [r], and it is non-consonantal which can be syllabic or not. In other languages like Serbian, Croatian and Sanskrit, there is a syllabic version of [r], thus [r̩].
answered 2 days ago
user6726
28.6k11654
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
The letters [r,w,h] conventionally refer to "consonants", specifically, non-syllabic segments, whereas [r̩,u] refer to syllabic segments ("vowels"). Similarly, [j] is a consonant, [i] is a vowel – but [j,i] are the same except for that difference (and also, [m,n] are non-syllabic, [m̩,n̩] are syllabic). [h] is a bit of a problem because it has no unique syllabic variant that can be articulated on its own, nut in a sequence like [ha, hi], [h] is phonetically a voiceless version of the following sonorant segment, so you could transcribe "ha" as [ḁa], "hi" as [j̥i].
The terms "consonants" and "vowel" are confusing since they are used in multiple ways. Sometimes, "consonant" vs "vowel" refers to syllable structure pattern, in which case [h,r,j,s,l,p...] are "consonants" and [a,r̩,i,l̩] are "vowels" (usually nobody calls [l̩] a vowel but [r̩] is often called a vowel, in English). But if you are talking about the decree of constriction in a sound, then the terminology changes. This is recognized in some theories of phonological features sucha s the SPE theory, where "consonantal" refers to a particular degree of constriction and "syllabic" refers to syllable-structure function. So [h,j,w] are non-consonantal, but non-syllabic; [a,i,u] are non-consonantal and syllabic; [m,l,p,s] are consonantal and non-syllabic; finally, [m̩,n̩,l̩] are sonsonantal and syllabic. The standard definition of "consonantal" is "a segment with more mid-sagittal constriction that that of [j]".
Versions of r add one other complication. American English r is generally an approximant [ɹ] and not [r], and it is non-consonantal which can be syllabic or not. In other languages like Serbian, Croatian and Sanskrit, there is a syllabic version of [r], thus [r̩].
answered 2 days ago
user6726
28.6k11654
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
The letters [r,w,h] conventionally refer to "consonants", specifically, non-syllabic segments, whereas [r̩,u] refer to syllabic segments ("vowels"). Similarly, [j] is a consonant, [i] is a vowel – but [j,i] are the same except for that difference (and also, [m,n] are non-syllabic, [m̩,n̩] are syllabic). [h] is a bit of a problem because it has no unique syllabic variant that can be articulated on its own, nut in a sequence like [ha, hi], [h] is phonetically a voiceless version of the following sonorant segment, so you could transcribe "ha" as [ḁa], "hi" as [j̥i].
The terms "consonants" and "vowel" are confusing since they are used in multiple ways. Sometimes, "consonant" vs "vowel" refers to syllable structure pattern, in which case [h,r,j,s,l,p...] are "consonants" and [a,r̩,i,l̩] are "vowels" (usually nobody calls [l̩] a vowel but [r̩] is often called a vowel, in English). But if you are talking about the decree of constriction in a sound, then the terminology changes. This is recognized in some theories of phonological features sucha s the SPE theory, where "consonantal" refers to a particular degree of constriction and "syllabic" refers to syllable-structure function. So [h,j,w] are non-consonantal, but non-syllabic; [a,i,u] are non-consonantal and syllabic; [m,l,p,s] are consonantal and non-syllabic; finally, [m̩,n̩,l̩] are sonsonantal and syllabic. The standard definition of "consonantal" is "a segment with more mid-sagittal constriction that that of [j]".
Versions of r add one other complication. American English r is generally an approximant [ɹ] and not [r], and it is non-consonantal which can be syllabic or not. In other languages like Serbian, Croatian and Sanskrit, there is a syllabic version of [r], thus [r̩].
answered 2 days ago
user6726
28.6k11654
The letters [r,w,h] conventionally refer to "consonants", specifically, non-syllabic segments, whereas [r̩,u] refer to syllabic segments ("vowels"). Similarly, [j] is a consonant, [i] is a vowel – but [j,i] are the same except for that difference (and also, [m,n] are non-syllabic, [m̩,n̩] are syllabic). [h] is a bit of a problem because it has no unique syllabic variant that can be articulated on its own, nut in a sequence like [ha, hi], [h] is phonetically a voiceless version of the following sonorant segment, so you could transcribe "ha" as [ḁa], "hi" as [j̥i].
The terms "consonants" and "vowel" are confusing since they are used in multiple ways. Sometimes, "consonant" vs "vowel" refers to syllable structure pattern, in which case [h,r,j,s,l,p...] are "consonants" and [a,r̩,i,l̩] are "vowels" (usually nobody calls [l̩] a vowel but [r̩] is often called a vowel, in English). But if you are talking about the decree of constriction in a sound, then the terminology changes. This is recognized in some theories of phonological features sucha s the SPE theory, where "consonantal" refers to a particular degree of constriction and "syllabic" refers to syllable-structure function. So [h,j,w] are non-consonantal, but non-syllabic; [a,i,u] are non-consonantal and syllabic; [m,l,p,s] are consonantal and non-syllabic; finally, [m̩,n̩,l̩] are sonsonantal and syllabic. The standard definition of "consonantal" is "a segment with more mid-sagittal constriction that that of [j]".
Versions of r add one other complication. American English r is generally an approximant [ɹ] and not [r], and it is non-consonantal which can be syllabic or not. In other languages like Serbian, Croatian and Sanskrit, there is a syllabic version of [r], thus [r̩].
answered 2 days ago
user6726
28.6k11654
answered 2 days ago
user6726
28.6k11654
answered 2 days ago
user6726
28.6k11654
answered 2 days ago
user6726
28.6k11654
28.6k11654
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f28973%2fwhy-r-h-and-w-arent-vowels%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
3
For [h], see the previous question "Why is /h/ called voiceless vowel phonetically, and /h/ consonant phonologically?" For [w], see "What is the phonetic and phonemic destinction between a semivowel and a vowel?" For [r], see Can a vowel be a consonant? and Do some dialects of English have a liquid vowels, such as /ɹ/ and /ɫ/?
– sumelic
2 days ago