Re: [phoNet] SV: Re: Phonetic curiosities

> > A very bright idea, and consistent with the general relation
> >between tone and quality in Lithuanian. Juozas, is it the case than
> >under a circumflex the [e] or [o] is clearer and longer, while under
> >an acute there's great emphasis on [i] or [u] and the rest of the
> >diphthong is schwa-like?

Tone and quality are obviously related in Lithuanian, and, as I can conclude
from my observations, I can disagree with Juozas and state that, yes, type
of accent can (with a little effort) be distinguished even with the falling
diphthongs.

>
> Theoretically, yes. But practically it's impossible to distinguish
> whether the speaker is emphasizing the first or the second part of
> the diphtongs "ie" and "uo" (although the varying pitch accent in the
> diphtongs "ai, au, ei" is audible). Can you believe that the simple
> long [o:] is also said to have either falling or rising pitch accent?
> This is crazy: I can't see any constituents in [o:], except for the
> long "o":) Maybe the emphases can be measured with sensible sound
> recording software but it's certainly unattainable to human ear.
>

And we should not forget some dialects where we can obsevre the full range
of ways of pronouncing this o:, from something like u: (so called
'du:nininkai') to plain o: ('do:nininkai'). Please note also, that some of
'native dialect-speakers' can't even pronounce 'plain' [o:], replacing it
with [a:] (Highlanders) or of of the [uo]s (Lowlanders).

Sergei