Talk:Near-close near-front rounded vowel

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force.

Dutch and German vowels

I think that the 'uu' in the Dutch example 'fuut' really sounds more like [y] than [Y]. The 'u' in the other Dutch example, 'hut', sounds close to identical to German 'ü' in 'hübsch', so can be transcribed with [y] I think. [oliver lenz]

Fuut is definitely /y:/ not /ʏ/. I think even hübsch is not really /ʏ/, more a short /y/ at least in my Dutch ears. af:Gebruiker:Jcwf

the 'ü' in 'hübsch' is not this one, I removed it. It sounds like Dutch 'uu', don't know what that is in IPA, but it's not like the other examples. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 23:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The 'ü' in German "hübsch" is exactly this one (Dutch spelling 'hupsj'). It's only that Dutch people for some reason (I think schools) pronounce it like their 'uu', so they say "hüübsch" (huupsj) and sound wrong to German ears. Same with 'i' which is exactly the same as Dutch 'i', but which they pronounce like 'ie'. Whenever I make a Dutch person say 'i' and 'u' for German 'i' and 'ü' they sound perfectly native. (Only exception: Bavarian and Austrian German do use [i] and [y] for these sounds.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.204.30.216 (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hut

I don't think the u in the Dutch word hut sounds at all like the y in Swedish ylle. To me (but I don't have any knowledge of phonetics), the u is closer (if not identical?) to the schwa. Or is that what is meant by the "lowered" comment? Sixtus 16:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The u in Dutch hut is often represented by /ʏ/, but actually the right transcription is /ø/. The sound eu as in Dutch deur is often represented by /ø/, whereas it actually should be represented by /ø:/. If not in front of a /r/, the Dutch eu is diphtongized. 84.195.78.97 16:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not, it's [ɵ] in the Netherlands and [ʏ̈] in Belgium. The eu sound is mid central [ɵ̞ː], but in dialects such as Maastrichtian it can be closer and more front, so in such cases it can be transcribed as either [ø̈ː] or [ɵ̟ː]. The diphthong you're speaking about is actually [ɵʉ̞]. 89.79.133.41 (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits

Londoners don't use this vowel in book. They use more conservative realizations there. However, some middle class speakers in Reading and Milton Keynes do use this vowel in words like book. My sources for this information are this and this. Thanks. Thegryseone (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good source, but the edit you've made is a bit too detailed (making for awkward column width). Perhaps the information is better put at English phonology. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand. This realization may occur elsewhere in southeastern England. I was just trying to make the point that /ʊ/ would never be that fronted in London itself. /ʊ/ is more conservative in London itself, according to research. Only in places such as Milton Keynes and Reading (and possibly others) would you find /ʊ/ as [ʏ]. Thegryseone (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endolabial vs exolabial

See Talk:Close_front_rounded_vowel#Everything_is_wrong!.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The endo/exo terms had been interchanged, but the compression/protruded terms and descriptions were correct. Should now be straightened out. kwami (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

Isn't it a bit irrelevant (and, given the lack of supporting evidence, unacademic) to speculate on the number of linguists who use high/low terminology as opposed to open/close? Surely it would be better to just identify high as an alternative, and equally acceptable description? Or even drop that paragraph entirely—the alternative name is listed at the very start of the article. As it is, it really only serves to confuse people who aren't familiar with phonetic descriptions of vowels. Nathan (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect sound file

The recording in the sound file is much too close to close-mid front rounded vowel. --Espoo (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Espoo: These vowels are very similar, sometimes practically identical. There's nothing strange about that. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I think the recording is correct. It's how I pronounce the vowel commonly transcribed [ʏ] in German. 92.204.30.216 (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A vowel chart in the latest edition of das Aussprachewörterbuch shows that /ʏ/ and /øː/ are identical in quality (apart from the fact that the latter is a tense vowel), so that's no surprise. Mr KEBAB (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to one of the latest edit summaries

This one to be precise.

I obviously meant to say that the front vs. near-front distinction is pretty much meaningless for rounded front vowels, not front vowels in general. My mistake. Mr KEBAB (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rural white Southern American

white? really? --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Error in the occurrence table

The hungarian example is wrong. The ogg file "says" üt (means hit with fist, punch) and not öt (which means 5 indeed). I suggest using forvo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.249.214.182 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]