Question about nasal vowels in IPA
Probably a silly question, but why are there no nasal vowels in IPA charts? Should we assume that nasal vowels are placed in the same position as the corresponding oral vowels in the vocal chart? So for example /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?
phonology ipa
add a comment |
Probably a silly question, but why are there no nasal vowels in IPA charts? Should we assume that nasal vowels are placed in the same position as the corresponding oral vowels in the vocal chart? So for example /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?
phonology ipa
3
Right. It's a different mode of articulation but all else remains more or less the same. You might reasonably ask why [m] is not therefore written as [b] with a tilde... Besides historical reasons (which sounds were phonemic in the languages whose alphabets contributed to the IPA) you might also consider that a nasal consonant differs from a stop more than a nasal vowel from an oral vowel.
– Luke Sawczak
Nov 27 '18 at 13:39
add a comment |
Probably a silly question, but why are there no nasal vowels in IPA charts? Should we assume that nasal vowels are placed in the same position as the corresponding oral vowels in the vocal chart? So for example /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?
phonology ipa
Probably a silly question, but why are there no nasal vowels in IPA charts? Should we assume that nasal vowels are placed in the same position as the corresponding oral vowels in the vocal chart? So for example /ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?
phonology ipa
phonology ipa
asked Nov 27 '18 at 13:14
lmc
1938
1938
3
Right. It's a different mode of articulation but all else remains more or less the same. You might reasonably ask why [m] is not therefore written as [b] with a tilde... Besides historical reasons (which sounds were phonemic in the languages whose alphabets contributed to the IPA) you might also consider that a nasal consonant differs from a stop more than a nasal vowel from an oral vowel.
– Luke Sawczak
Nov 27 '18 at 13:39
add a comment |
3
Right. It's a different mode of articulation but all else remains more or less the same. You might reasonably ask why [m] is not therefore written as [b] with a tilde... Besides historical reasons (which sounds were phonemic in the languages whose alphabets contributed to the IPA) you might also consider that a nasal consonant differs from a stop more than a nasal vowel from an oral vowel.
– Luke Sawczak
Nov 27 '18 at 13:39
3
3
Right. It's a different mode of articulation but all else remains more or less the same. You might reasonably ask why [m] is not therefore written as [b] with a tilde... Besides historical reasons (which sounds were phonemic in the languages whose alphabets contributed to the IPA) you might also consider that a nasal consonant differs from a stop more than a nasal vowel from an oral vowel.
– Luke Sawczak
Nov 27 '18 at 13:39
Right. It's a different mode of articulation but all else remains more or less the same. You might reasonably ask why [m] is not therefore written as [b] with a tilde... Besides historical reasons (which sounds were phonemic in the languages whose alphabets contributed to the IPA) you might also consider that a nasal consonant differs from a stop more than a nasal vowel from an oral vowel.
– Luke Sawczak
Nov 27 '18 at 13:39
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
/ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?
Generic IPA charts don't show you where phonemes are; they show you where phones are. The standard convention would be that the phone [ɛ̃] is in the same "place" as the phone [ɛ]: an open-mid front unrounded vowel. (I don't know enough about phonetics to say whether nasalization causes any predictable distortions to the first and second formants of a vowel.)
That does not mean that the phonetic realization of the phoneme transcribed /ɛ̃/ and the phonetic realization of the phoneme transcribed /ɛ/ are in the same "place" for any particular language. French, one of the most well-known languages with nasal vowels, does not have a straightforward equivalence between the qualities of the nasal vowel phonemes and the qualities of the oral vowel phonemes that are transcribed with the "same" letters. In a typical Parisian accent, /ɛ̃/ is often opener than /ɛ/ (I've read suggestions that an accurate phonetic transcription would be [æ̃]). The French nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɔ̃/ can reportedly have a phonetic value more like [õ] for many speakers in France, and the nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɑ̃/ may apparently be realized with some degree of rounding, so something like [ɒ̃] (or perhaps even raised to [ɔ̃]).
On the other hand, Wikipedia says
In Quebec French, two of the vowels shift in a different direction: /ɔ̃/ → [õ], more or less as in Europe, but /ɛ̃/ → [ẽ] and /ɑ̃/ → [ã].
1
For another example, Brazilian Portuguese /ã/ is usually transcribed [ɐ̃] narrowly (vs. stressed /a/ = [a] proper).
– melboiko
Dec 7 '18 at 10:19
I could better appreciate your remarks if I exchanged your terms "phone" and "phoneme". I thought phonemes were "points in a pattern", not actual sounds.
– Greg Lee
Dec 7 '18 at 10:47
@GregLee: I guess I wrote "the phoneme" where I meant to express "phonetic realization of the phoneme".
– sumelic
Dec 7 '18 at 10:57
The one thing that always gets me is nasalized diphthongs get a separate tilde over each letter. Makes for very messy transcriptions in some languages where a single extended tilde would be much cleaner and often make more sense.
– guifa
Dec 8 '18 at 19:10
add a comment |
Good catch. Since its inception, one of the IPA's core principles has been that each phoneme in languages around the world should be given a separate IPA letter. The first of the original 1888 principles stated:
There should be a separate sign for each distinctive sound; that is, for each sound which, being used instead of another, in the same language, can change the meaning of a word.
As you pointed out, this would mean that nasal vowels, aspirated plosives, affricates etc. must also be assigned separate letters because they certainly are distinctive in many languages. But they have never been given separate letters (save for some obsolete letters for affricates), and to do so would have cluttered the alphabet considerably. Although the 1888 principles stated "The alphabet should consist ... as few new letters as possible being used", this apparent discrepancy was not explicitly addressed by the Association until the 1989 overhaul of the alphabet and its principles. At the Kiel Convention of 1989, the IPA revised the principles, which said in part:
It is not possible to dispense entirely with diacritics. The International Phonetic Association recommends that their use be limited as far as possible to the following cases:
(i) For denoting length, stress and pitch.
(ii) For representing minute shades of sounds.
(iii) When the introduction of a single diacritic obviates the necessity for designing a number of new symbols (as, for instance, in the representation of nasalized vowels).
So there. Creating a separate symbol for each phoneme ever found in any language of the world would very soon render the IPA chart pretty unwieldy. So in general, the IPA has, since the 1979 revision, opted for a more simple and efficient set of symbols and diacritics, disposing of superfluous and/or seldom-used letters and diacritics like [ƾ] ( = [ts]) and [ɼ] ( = [r̝]).
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "312"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f29767%2fquestion-about-nasal-vowels-in-ipa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
/ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?
Generic IPA charts don't show you where phonemes are; they show you where phones are. The standard convention would be that the phone [ɛ̃] is in the same "place" as the phone [ɛ]: an open-mid front unrounded vowel. (I don't know enough about phonetics to say whether nasalization causes any predictable distortions to the first and second formants of a vowel.)
That does not mean that the phonetic realization of the phoneme transcribed /ɛ̃/ and the phonetic realization of the phoneme transcribed /ɛ/ are in the same "place" for any particular language. French, one of the most well-known languages with nasal vowels, does not have a straightforward equivalence between the qualities of the nasal vowel phonemes and the qualities of the oral vowel phonemes that are transcribed with the "same" letters. In a typical Parisian accent, /ɛ̃/ is often opener than /ɛ/ (I've read suggestions that an accurate phonetic transcription would be [æ̃]). The French nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɔ̃/ can reportedly have a phonetic value more like [õ] for many speakers in France, and the nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɑ̃/ may apparently be realized with some degree of rounding, so something like [ɒ̃] (or perhaps even raised to [ɔ̃]).
On the other hand, Wikipedia says
In Quebec French, two of the vowels shift in a different direction: /ɔ̃/ → [õ], more or less as in Europe, but /ɛ̃/ → [ẽ] and /ɑ̃/ → [ã].
1
For another example, Brazilian Portuguese /ã/ is usually transcribed [ɐ̃] narrowly (vs. stressed /a/ = [a] proper).
– melboiko
Dec 7 '18 at 10:19
I could better appreciate your remarks if I exchanged your terms "phone" and "phoneme". I thought phonemes were "points in a pattern", not actual sounds.
– Greg Lee
Dec 7 '18 at 10:47
@GregLee: I guess I wrote "the phoneme" where I meant to express "phonetic realization of the phoneme".
– sumelic
Dec 7 '18 at 10:57
The one thing that always gets me is nasalized diphthongs get a separate tilde over each letter. Makes for very messy transcriptions in some languages where a single extended tilde would be much cleaner and often make more sense.
– guifa
Dec 8 '18 at 19:10
add a comment |
/ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?
Generic IPA charts don't show you where phonemes are; they show you where phones are. The standard convention would be that the phone [ɛ̃] is in the same "place" as the phone [ɛ]: an open-mid front unrounded vowel. (I don't know enough about phonetics to say whether nasalization causes any predictable distortions to the first and second formants of a vowel.)
That does not mean that the phonetic realization of the phoneme transcribed /ɛ̃/ and the phonetic realization of the phoneme transcribed /ɛ/ are in the same "place" for any particular language. French, one of the most well-known languages with nasal vowels, does not have a straightforward equivalence between the qualities of the nasal vowel phonemes and the qualities of the oral vowel phonemes that are transcribed with the "same" letters. In a typical Parisian accent, /ɛ̃/ is often opener than /ɛ/ (I've read suggestions that an accurate phonetic transcription would be [æ̃]). The French nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɔ̃/ can reportedly have a phonetic value more like [õ] for many speakers in France, and the nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɑ̃/ may apparently be realized with some degree of rounding, so something like [ɒ̃] (or perhaps even raised to [ɔ̃]).
On the other hand, Wikipedia says
In Quebec French, two of the vowels shift in a different direction: /ɔ̃/ → [õ], more or less as in Europe, but /ɛ̃/ → [ẽ] and /ɑ̃/ → [ã].
1
For another example, Brazilian Portuguese /ã/ is usually transcribed [ɐ̃] narrowly (vs. stressed /a/ = [a] proper).
– melboiko
Dec 7 '18 at 10:19
I could better appreciate your remarks if I exchanged your terms "phone" and "phoneme". I thought phonemes were "points in a pattern", not actual sounds.
– Greg Lee
Dec 7 '18 at 10:47
@GregLee: I guess I wrote "the phoneme" where I meant to express "phonetic realization of the phoneme".
– sumelic
Dec 7 '18 at 10:57
The one thing that always gets me is nasalized diphthongs get a separate tilde over each letter. Makes for very messy transcriptions in some languages where a single extended tilde would be much cleaner and often make more sense.
– guifa
Dec 8 '18 at 19:10
add a comment |
/ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?
Generic IPA charts don't show you where phonemes are; they show you where phones are. The standard convention would be that the phone [ɛ̃] is in the same "place" as the phone [ɛ]: an open-mid front unrounded vowel. (I don't know enough about phonetics to say whether nasalization causes any predictable distortions to the first and second formants of a vowel.)
That does not mean that the phonetic realization of the phoneme transcribed /ɛ̃/ and the phonetic realization of the phoneme transcribed /ɛ/ are in the same "place" for any particular language. French, one of the most well-known languages with nasal vowels, does not have a straightforward equivalence between the qualities of the nasal vowel phonemes and the qualities of the oral vowel phonemes that are transcribed with the "same" letters. In a typical Parisian accent, /ɛ̃/ is often opener than /ɛ/ (I've read suggestions that an accurate phonetic transcription would be [æ̃]). The French nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɔ̃/ can reportedly have a phonetic value more like [õ] for many speakers in France, and the nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɑ̃/ may apparently be realized with some degree of rounding, so something like [ɒ̃] (or perhaps even raised to [ɔ̃]).
On the other hand, Wikipedia says
In Quebec French, two of the vowels shift in a different direction: /ɔ̃/ → [õ], more or less as in Europe, but /ɛ̃/ → [ẽ] and /ɑ̃/ → [ã].
/ɛ̃/ is where /ɛ/ is?
Generic IPA charts don't show you where phonemes are; they show you where phones are. The standard convention would be that the phone [ɛ̃] is in the same "place" as the phone [ɛ]: an open-mid front unrounded vowel. (I don't know enough about phonetics to say whether nasalization causes any predictable distortions to the first and second formants of a vowel.)
That does not mean that the phonetic realization of the phoneme transcribed /ɛ̃/ and the phonetic realization of the phoneme transcribed /ɛ/ are in the same "place" for any particular language. French, one of the most well-known languages with nasal vowels, does not have a straightforward equivalence between the qualities of the nasal vowel phonemes and the qualities of the oral vowel phonemes that are transcribed with the "same" letters. In a typical Parisian accent, /ɛ̃/ is often opener than /ɛ/ (I've read suggestions that an accurate phonetic transcription would be [æ̃]). The French nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɔ̃/ can reportedly have a phonetic value more like [õ] for many speakers in France, and the nasal vowel that is typically transcribed as /ɑ̃/ may apparently be realized with some degree of rounding, so something like [ɒ̃] (or perhaps even raised to [ɔ̃]).
On the other hand, Wikipedia says
In Quebec French, two of the vowels shift in a different direction: /ɔ̃/ → [õ], more or less as in Europe, but /ɛ̃/ → [ẽ] and /ɑ̃/ → [ã].
edited Dec 7 '18 at 11:07
answered Nov 27 '18 at 14:08
sumelic
8,32811748
8,32811748
1
For another example, Brazilian Portuguese /ã/ is usually transcribed [ɐ̃] narrowly (vs. stressed /a/ = [a] proper).
– melboiko
Dec 7 '18 at 10:19
I could better appreciate your remarks if I exchanged your terms "phone" and "phoneme". I thought phonemes were "points in a pattern", not actual sounds.
– Greg Lee
Dec 7 '18 at 10:47
@GregLee: I guess I wrote "the phoneme" where I meant to express "phonetic realization of the phoneme".
– sumelic
Dec 7 '18 at 10:57
The one thing that always gets me is nasalized diphthongs get a separate tilde over each letter. Makes for very messy transcriptions in some languages where a single extended tilde would be much cleaner and often make more sense.
– guifa
Dec 8 '18 at 19:10
add a comment |
1
For another example, Brazilian Portuguese /ã/ is usually transcribed [ɐ̃] narrowly (vs. stressed /a/ = [a] proper).
– melboiko
Dec 7 '18 at 10:19
I could better appreciate your remarks if I exchanged your terms "phone" and "phoneme". I thought phonemes were "points in a pattern", not actual sounds.
– Greg Lee
Dec 7 '18 at 10:47
@GregLee: I guess I wrote "the phoneme" where I meant to express "phonetic realization of the phoneme".
– sumelic
Dec 7 '18 at 10:57
The one thing that always gets me is nasalized diphthongs get a separate tilde over each letter. Makes for very messy transcriptions in some languages where a single extended tilde would be much cleaner and often make more sense.
– guifa
Dec 8 '18 at 19:10
1
1
For another example, Brazilian Portuguese /ã/ is usually transcribed [ɐ̃] narrowly (vs. stressed /a/ = [a] proper).
– melboiko
Dec 7 '18 at 10:19
For another example, Brazilian Portuguese /ã/ is usually transcribed [ɐ̃] narrowly (vs. stressed /a/ = [a] proper).
– melboiko
Dec 7 '18 at 10:19
I could better appreciate your remarks if I exchanged your terms "phone" and "phoneme". I thought phonemes were "points in a pattern", not actual sounds.
– Greg Lee
Dec 7 '18 at 10:47
I could better appreciate your remarks if I exchanged your terms "phone" and "phoneme". I thought phonemes were "points in a pattern", not actual sounds.
– Greg Lee
Dec 7 '18 at 10:47
@GregLee: I guess I wrote "the phoneme" where I meant to express "phonetic realization of the phoneme".
– sumelic
Dec 7 '18 at 10:57
@GregLee: I guess I wrote "the phoneme" where I meant to express "phonetic realization of the phoneme".
– sumelic
Dec 7 '18 at 10:57
The one thing that always gets me is nasalized diphthongs get a separate tilde over each letter. Makes for very messy transcriptions in some languages where a single extended tilde would be much cleaner and often make more sense.
– guifa
Dec 8 '18 at 19:10
The one thing that always gets me is nasalized diphthongs get a separate tilde over each letter. Makes for very messy transcriptions in some languages where a single extended tilde would be much cleaner and often make more sense.
– guifa
Dec 8 '18 at 19:10
add a comment |
Good catch. Since its inception, one of the IPA's core principles has been that each phoneme in languages around the world should be given a separate IPA letter. The first of the original 1888 principles stated:
There should be a separate sign for each distinctive sound; that is, for each sound which, being used instead of another, in the same language, can change the meaning of a word.
As you pointed out, this would mean that nasal vowels, aspirated plosives, affricates etc. must also be assigned separate letters because they certainly are distinctive in many languages. But they have never been given separate letters (save for some obsolete letters for affricates), and to do so would have cluttered the alphabet considerably. Although the 1888 principles stated "The alphabet should consist ... as few new letters as possible being used", this apparent discrepancy was not explicitly addressed by the Association until the 1989 overhaul of the alphabet and its principles. At the Kiel Convention of 1989, the IPA revised the principles, which said in part:
It is not possible to dispense entirely with diacritics. The International Phonetic Association recommends that their use be limited as far as possible to the following cases:
(i) For denoting length, stress and pitch.
(ii) For representing minute shades of sounds.
(iii) When the introduction of a single diacritic obviates the necessity for designing a number of new symbols (as, for instance, in the representation of nasalized vowels).
So there. Creating a separate symbol for each phoneme ever found in any language of the world would very soon render the IPA chart pretty unwieldy. So in general, the IPA has, since the 1979 revision, opted for a more simple and efficient set of symbols and diacritics, disposing of superfluous and/or seldom-used letters and diacritics like [ƾ] ( = [ts]) and [ɼ] ( = [r̝]).
add a comment |
Good catch. Since its inception, one of the IPA's core principles has been that each phoneme in languages around the world should be given a separate IPA letter. The first of the original 1888 principles stated:
There should be a separate sign for each distinctive sound; that is, for each sound which, being used instead of another, in the same language, can change the meaning of a word.
As you pointed out, this would mean that nasal vowels, aspirated plosives, affricates etc. must also be assigned separate letters because they certainly are distinctive in many languages. But they have never been given separate letters (save for some obsolete letters for affricates), and to do so would have cluttered the alphabet considerably. Although the 1888 principles stated "The alphabet should consist ... as few new letters as possible being used", this apparent discrepancy was not explicitly addressed by the Association until the 1989 overhaul of the alphabet and its principles. At the Kiel Convention of 1989, the IPA revised the principles, which said in part:
It is not possible to dispense entirely with diacritics. The International Phonetic Association recommends that their use be limited as far as possible to the following cases:
(i) For denoting length, stress and pitch.
(ii) For representing minute shades of sounds.
(iii) When the introduction of a single diacritic obviates the necessity for designing a number of new symbols (as, for instance, in the representation of nasalized vowels).
So there. Creating a separate symbol for each phoneme ever found in any language of the world would very soon render the IPA chart pretty unwieldy. So in general, the IPA has, since the 1979 revision, opted for a more simple and efficient set of symbols and diacritics, disposing of superfluous and/or seldom-used letters and diacritics like [ƾ] ( = [ts]) and [ɼ] ( = [r̝]).
add a comment |
Good catch. Since its inception, one of the IPA's core principles has been that each phoneme in languages around the world should be given a separate IPA letter. The first of the original 1888 principles stated:
There should be a separate sign for each distinctive sound; that is, for each sound which, being used instead of another, in the same language, can change the meaning of a word.
As you pointed out, this would mean that nasal vowels, aspirated plosives, affricates etc. must also be assigned separate letters because they certainly are distinctive in many languages. But they have never been given separate letters (save for some obsolete letters for affricates), and to do so would have cluttered the alphabet considerably. Although the 1888 principles stated "The alphabet should consist ... as few new letters as possible being used", this apparent discrepancy was not explicitly addressed by the Association until the 1989 overhaul of the alphabet and its principles. At the Kiel Convention of 1989, the IPA revised the principles, which said in part:
It is not possible to dispense entirely with diacritics. The International Phonetic Association recommends that their use be limited as far as possible to the following cases:
(i) For denoting length, stress and pitch.
(ii) For representing minute shades of sounds.
(iii) When the introduction of a single diacritic obviates the necessity for designing a number of new symbols (as, for instance, in the representation of nasalized vowels).
So there. Creating a separate symbol for each phoneme ever found in any language of the world would very soon render the IPA chart pretty unwieldy. So in general, the IPA has, since the 1979 revision, opted for a more simple and efficient set of symbols and diacritics, disposing of superfluous and/or seldom-used letters and diacritics like [ƾ] ( = [ts]) and [ɼ] ( = [r̝]).
Good catch. Since its inception, one of the IPA's core principles has been that each phoneme in languages around the world should be given a separate IPA letter. The first of the original 1888 principles stated:
There should be a separate sign for each distinctive sound; that is, for each sound which, being used instead of another, in the same language, can change the meaning of a word.
As you pointed out, this would mean that nasal vowels, aspirated plosives, affricates etc. must also be assigned separate letters because they certainly are distinctive in many languages. But they have never been given separate letters (save for some obsolete letters for affricates), and to do so would have cluttered the alphabet considerably. Although the 1888 principles stated "The alphabet should consist ... as few new letters as possible being used", this apparent discrepancy was not explicitly addressed by the Association until the 1989 overhaul of the alphabet and its principles. At the Kiel Convention of 1989, the IPA revised the principles, which said in part:
It is not possible to dispense entirely with diacritics. The International Phonetic Association recommends that their use be limited as far as possible to the following cases:
(i) For denoting length, stress and pitch.
(ii) For representing minute shades of sounds.
(iii) When the introduction of a single diacritic obviates the necessity for designing a number of new symbols (as, for instance, in the representation of nasalized vowels).
So there. Creating a separate symbol for each phoneme ever found in any language of the world would very soon render the IPA chart pretty unwieldy. So in general, the IPA has, since the 1979 revision, opted for a more simple and efficient set of symbols and diacritics, disposing of superfluous and/or seldom-used letters and diacritics like [ƾ] ( = [ts]) and [ɼ] ( = [r̝]).
answered Nov 27 '18 at 17:42
Nardog
7931313
7931313
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Linguistics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f29767%2fquestion-about-nasal-vowels-in-ipa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Right. It's a different mode of articulation but all else remains more or less the same. You might reasonably ask why [m] is not therefore written as [b] with a tilde... Besides historical reasons (which sounds were phonemic in the languages whose alphabets contributed to the IPA) you might also consider that a nasal consonant differs from a stop more than a nasal vowel from an oral vowel.
– Luke Sawczak
Nov 27 '18 at 13:39