Re: Monophthongs in IPA

> The pronunciation of the three pairs of monophthongs is
> described by Warder thus:
>
> a  like u in 'hut'
> aa like a in 'barn'
> i  like i in 'bit'
> ii like ee in 'beet'
> u  like u in 'put' or oo in 'foot'
> uu like u in 'brute'
>
> In IPA these would then be:
>
> a-va.n.na:     [inverted v], [script a:]
> i-va.n.na:     [I], [i:]
> u-va.n.na:     [upsilon], [u:]
>
> I am curious to know what is the basis for the judgment that
> the two items in each pair are phonetically distinct (as
> opposed to being two identical sounds that differ only in
> duration) ? I don't see any evidence for their phonetic
> distinctness in the Pali grammars that I have looked at; so
> is this a conclusion that has been arrived at by comparison
> with Sanskrit, or on the basis of modern pronunciation, or
> something else ?

I am less knowledgeable in the history of European Pali studies than
some other members of this group.  I would assume, however, that Warder
is trying to give English speakers an idea of how to pronounce Pali.
In English vowel length is always accompanied by differences in
quality.  Therefore what you are talking about is an artifact of
English phonology.

> Is there any possibility that in Buddhaghosa's day the
> monophthongal system may have been like that of Icelandic,
> in which every vowel has both a long and a short form,
> according to which and how many consonants follow it ?

Perfectly possible; in fact even if we know nothing else, it should be
the assumption since the English system is rather unusual.

> I am thinking of something like this:
>
> a-va.n.na:     [inverted v], [inverted v:]
> i-va.n.na:     [I], [I:]
> u-va.n.na:     [upsilon], [upsilon:]
>
> or:
>
> a-va.n.na:     [script a], [script a:]
> i-va.n.na:     [i], [i:]
> u-va.n.na:     [u], [u:]
>
> Or perhaps some blend of the two. If this is implausible,
> then what exactly is the negative evidence that counts
> against it ?

I think the second proposal is more plausible because if there are no
quality differences of the English sort, then the more extreme
qualities ([a, i, u]) are less marked.

> One other question: from the account in the grammars it
> would appear there are several possible contenders for the
> vowel 'a' besides [inverted v]. I'm thinking in particular
> of [turned a], [script a], or even [schwa]. What is the
> basis for the preference for [inverted v] ?

A good question.  Once again, in English the short (or lax) 'a' is
noticeably higher and more central than the long 'a'.  The inverted 'v'
is the IPA symbol for this sound.  Turned 'a' and schwa represent
slightly different sounds, but particularly schwa is often used to
represent the English short 'a'.

George Bedell

*   *   *   *   *
George Bedell
120/2 Palm Springs Place
Mahidol Road, Chiang Mai 50000
THAILAND
+66 (0)53-241342
correspondence in Japanese may be addressed to
      gbedelljp@...

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com