--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fortuna11111" <fortuna11111@...>
wrote:
[...]
> And since you talked about /s/ vs. /z/, you can try the following
> (to see how sound quality changes depending on the consonant).
Say
> sssssssssssssssssssssaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! (choose a place
> where no one can hear you and just let your voice go as high as it
> wants to go). Then do the same with
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
> Let the inertia of the consonant bring the tone. I think even an
> unexperienced "singer" will notice the enormous difference. You
get
> a very high-pitch and somehwat shallower tone after the s in that
> the tone seems to "come out" of the dome of the head. You get a
> deeper, richer and not very high pitch tone quality after the "z"
in
> that the tone finds an outlet in the higher forehead (by the way,
> the association with the forehead or with the dome is connected
with
> the varying pitch and with the difference in the inner openings
you
> need for a higher and a lower note). A trained singer would be
able
> to produce the same high pitch after the /s/ and the /z/, of
> course. But since the /z/ naturally produces a tone with greater
> intensity, you will need more technique to sing the same high
pitch
> after the "z". Therefore, I am not talking about technique, but
> about letting your voice go naturally where it wants after a
> particular consonant. Such an exercise and the likes could
already
> tell you a lot about the nature of the relationship e/o, s/z,
> voiced/voiceless, that you already mentioned.
>
> I hope this is readable and I hope it helps.
[...]
Thank you, Eva, it certainly explains and illustrates a lot. Indeed,
I would rank it a full and incontrovertible demonstration of the
correctness of the gut feelings I have had on a much less
sophisticated level about how easily and how naturally particular
sounds and tones can be combined. My pedestrian impression may even
be more relevant to the matter at hand, since that was concerned
with natural speech and not with artistic singing. My original
source of information was a book by Patricia Jane Donegan, The
Natural Phonology of Vowels, a volume of Ohio Working Papers in
Linguistics from 1978. I do not have it where I am now, but I
remember it gave me the impression that the parameter called
sonority could do things to vowels and could itself be increased or
decreased by the environment. Unfortunately, I also remember that I
have later been unsuccessful in locating an exact quote to that
effect in the entire book, so maybe it was all just my own thought
as inspired from what I read or had expected to read in the book.
One way or the other it did occasion me to think about these
variables.
I have been taken to task for not producing exact parallels for the
voice-governed e/o alternation, and funnily not for making it voice-
governed, but for connecting that fact in turn with the tone. Now, I
actually don't know of *any* other cases of a voice-governed
alternation e/o, so the "low incidence" of the association with the
tone is not of much relevance. Of course I accept what I see whether
I understand it or not, as one must in any self-respecting empirical
science. But it sure is a relief to be told in no uncertain terms
that every step of the line of reasoning is in full agreement with
solid knowledge about the way the speech organs actually work. There
may come a day when I will like to quote you on this. For now, I
just say thank you.
Jens