Zompist Bboard Again

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:27 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:06 pm A part of it might simply be convention. Now that I test it, when I pronounce vous, it's farther back than grew, which is not as far front as kutsu.

What does this mean for the usual transcription of Japanese ⟨u⟩ as [ɯᵝ]?

(As for myself, in English I have distinctly central [ʉː] in most if not all environments.)

Is Japanese [ɯᵝ] at all centralized like [ɯ] ostensibly often is (even though it isn't for me), or is that notation solely to indicate that [ɯᵝ] is compressed rather than rounded?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:32 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:27 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:06 pm A part of it might simply be convention. Now that I test it, when I pronounce vous, it's farther back than grew, which is not as far front as kutsu.

What does this mean for the usual transcription of Japanese ⟨u⟩ as [ɯᵝ]?

(As for myself, in English I have distinctly central [ʉː] in most if not all environments.)

Is Japanese [ɯᵝ] at all centralized like [ɯ] ostensibly often is (even though it isn't for me), or is that notation solely to indicate that [ɯᵝ] is compressed rather than rounded?

It's usually just to represent compression.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:30 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:27 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:06 pm A part of it might simply be convention. Now that I test it, when I pronounce vous, it's farther back than grew, which is not as far front as kutsu.

What does this mean for the usual transcription of Japanese ⟨u⟩ as [ɯᵝ]?

I've seen it transcribed as [ɨᵝ], too. I expect there's significant variation. I'm also not a native speaker.

Well, [ɨ] and [ɯ] are usually treated as representing more or less the same phone, so I’d consider that merely a transcriptional invariant…

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 7:47 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:30 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:27 pm
What does this mean for the usual transcription of Japanese ⟨u⟩ as [ɯᵝ]?

I've seen it transcribed as [ɨᵝ], too. I expect there's significant variation. I'm also not a native speaker.

Well, [ɨ] and [ɯ] are usually treated as representing more or less the same phone, so I’d consider that merely a transcriptional invariant…

The charts I've seen usually have [ɨ] as further front than [ɯ].

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 7:56 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 7:47 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:30 pm
I've seen it transcribed as [ɨᵝ], too. I expect there's significant variation. I'm also not a native speaker.

Well, [ɨ] and [ɯ] are usually treated as representing more or less the same phone, so I’d consider that merely a transcriptional invariant…

The charts I've seen usually have [ɨ] as further front than [ɯ].

I am used to [ɨ] being an unrounded central close or near-close vowel while [ɯ] is an unrounded back close or near-close vowel.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 7:56 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 7:47 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:30 pm
I've seen it transcribed as [ɨᵝ], too. I expect there's significant variation. I'm also not a native speaker.

Well, [ɨ] and [ɯ] are usually treated as representing more or less the same phone, so I’d consider that merely a transcriptional invariant…

The charts I've seen usually have [ɨ] as further front than [ɯ].

Indeed, but it’s hard (if not entirely impossible) to find a language which distinguishes the two, and in practise languages seem to get transcribed with both depending on who’s doing the transcription.

(And sorry, just noticed that ‘invariant’ in the quoted post should of course be ‘variant’…)

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 9:56 pm (And sorry, just noticed that ‘invariant’ in the quoted post should of course be ‘variant’…)

I thought you were being facetious.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 9:56 pm Indeed, but it’s hard (if not entirely impossible) to find a language which distinguishes the two, and in practise languages seem to get transcribed with both depending on who’s doing the transcription.

To once more go into IMD territory, I have a very clear contrast between [ɘ] and [ɯ], and [ɘ] is not too far from [ɨ]...

I made a sentence:
1. White clouds lay hung in the blue sky, clear and high.
and received a comment: What is clear and high?

I know it's grammatical to use two "equally-emphasized independent clauses":
2. White clouds hung in the blue sky; the sky was clear and high.

But I'd like more to simplify the second clause and make it "less emphasized". Which expressions below will you suggest? Or do you have better ones? I know we've discussed this before, but I am still unconfident.
Thank you.

3. White clouds hung in the blue sky, the sky clear and high.
4. ..., with the sky clear and high.
5. ..., with the sky being clear and high.
6. ..., which was clear and high.

I made a sentence
1. Birds sang happily and the river flowed quietly (or gently, peacefully), in which some fish were swimming.

and received a comment: It's not good to have the verb separating the noun ("the river") from the which-clause.

Q: Does it get better if I change "in which" for "where", Or is the problem still the same? Thank you.
2. ... the river flowed gently, where some fish were swimming (casually).

Q: What's the most common term in English for a place where you can feel the wind blow, see trees, fields, clouds and sky, hear birds sing and do some jogging along the river? Is it proper to say "in the outskirts of the town"? Or do I have to say "in the countryside"?

Thank you.

azhong wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 8:40 am Q: What's the most common term in English for a place where you can feel the wind blow, see trees, fields, clouds and sky, hear birds sing and do some jogging along the river? Is it proper to say "in the outskirts of the town"? Or do I have to say "in the countryside"?

Thank you.

Here I would probably go with in the countryside connotation-wise... but mind you, the other is on the outskirts of the town.

azhong wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:03 am I made a sentence:
1. White clouds lay hung in the blue sky, clear and high.
and received a comment: What is clear and high?

2. White clouds hung in the blue sky; the sky was clear and high.

3. White clouds hung in the blue sky, the sky clear and high.
4. ..., with the sky clear and high.
5. ..., with the sky being clear and high.
6. ..., which was clear and high.

I'm not a native speaker, but I'd say:
1) sounds like poetry; also my default reading would be that it's the clouds that are clear and high, because they are the subject of the preceding clause.
2) is fine
3) also sounds like poetry / song lyrics and not like something people would say naturally.
4) - 5) sound wooden and unidiomatic
6) is fine as well.

azhong wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:16 am I made a sentence
1. Birds sang happily and the river flowed quietly (or gently, peacefully), in which some fish were swimming.

and received a comment: It's not good to have the verb separating the noun ("the river") from the which-clause.

Q: Does it get better if I change "in which" for "where", Or is the problem still the same? Thank you.
2. ... the river flowed gently, where some fish were swimming (casually).

The problem is still the same.

azhong wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 8:40 amQ: What's the most common term in English for a place where you can feel the wind blow, see trees, fields, clouds and sky, hear birds sing and do some jogging along the river? Is it proper to say "in the outskirts of the town"? Or do I have to say "in the countryside"?

"The outskirts of the town" is much more specific--especially given that you say "the town", as if you have a particular town in mind. I can do all of these things within the city limits of the city where I live, but if you're specifically talking about an area that is not built-up, I would stay "in the country".

I also agree with all of Hans-Werner's comments above on the various iterations of "clear and high". It's tricky because--in general--there's a principle (more stylistic than grammatical) that postposed modifiers stick close to what they modify, but I have the same issue with the original sentence, i.e. thinking that they refer back to the subject. (It's a bit odd to describe clouds as "clear", but I can think of several passable interpretations.)

Thank you all for your help.
I have another question about the same sentence I made, please.
1. Like the other Sunday mornings, they went for a walk in the field this Sunday.*

Q: I guess the sentence is illogical to say people are like mornings, and it should be logically revised as
2. Like on the other Sunday mornings, they went for a walk in the field on this Sunday.
Am I correct?

[*] But I think (2) is still imperfect even though it's logical, because the suggestion I received is,
3. On this Sunday they went for a walk in the fields/countryside, as they did every Sunday.

azhong wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 8:52 pm1. Like the other Sunday mornings, they went for a walk in the field this Sunday.*

Q: I guess the sentence is illogical to say people are like mornings, and it should be logically revised as
2. Like on the other Sunday mornings, they went for a walk in the field on this Sunday.
Am I correct?

The "on" in "on this Sunday" is pleonastic. As a conjunction, "as" is much more elegant than "like".

azhong wrote:[*] But I think (2) is still imperfect even though it's logical, because the suggestion I received is,
3. On this Sunday they went for a walk in the fields/countryside, as they did every Sunday.

Stylistically, this is a better sentence. I would have to see the context to better understand the impact of fronting the subordinate clause versus leaving it till the end. If you want to avoid repeating "Sunday morning", you could say "As they did every Sunday morning, they went for a walk in the countryside."

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 10:51 am

azhong wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 8:52 pm1. Like the other Sunday mornings, they went for a walk in the field this Sunday.*
...
[*] But I think (2) is still imperfect even though it's logical, because the suggestion I received is,
3. On this Sunday they went for a walk in the fields/countryside, as they did every Sunday.

Stylistically, this is a better sentence. I would have to see the context to better understand the impact of fronting the subordinate clause versus leaving it till the end.

Pls see #218(my draft) and #219(their comment) in this tread and here I excerpt:
#218(my draft)

Mimì and Rodolfo were poor but lived happily. Like the other Sunday mornings, they also went for a walk in the field this Sunday.

#219(his/her comment)

but lived happily: I don't really like this; it would sound better with something added, e.g. "lived happily together" or even something longer. (One could just say "were poor but happy", but I think that's too much of a cliché,)

On this Sunday they went for a walk in the fields (not just one field? Or "in the countryside"?), as they did every Sunday. (Or "like they did" ....)

azhong wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 9:28 pm

Mimì and Rodolfo were poor but lived happily. Like the other Sunday mornings, they also went for a walk in the field this Sunday.

#219(his/her comment)

but lived happily: I don't really like this; it would sound better with something added, e.g. "lived happily together" or even something longer. (One could just say "were poor but happy", but I think that's too much of a cliché,)

On this Sunday they went for a walk in the fields (not just one field? Or "in the countryside"?), as they did every Sunday. (Or "like they did" ....)

I don't see anything wrong with "but lived happily".

If you say "went for a walk in the field", it sounds like you have one specific field in mind (although "in the field" in certain contexts--like scientific experimentation or business administration--has the sense of in situ rather than in a laboratory or other controlled setting).

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 9:17 am

azhong wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 8:40 am Q: What's the most common term in English for a place where you can feel the wind blow, see trees, fields, clouds and sky, hear birds sing and do some jogging along the river? Is it proper to say "in the outskirts of the town"? Or do I have to say "in the countryside"?

Thank you.

Here I would probably go with in the countryside connotation-wise... but mind you, the other is on the outskirts of the town.

I agree that in the countryside fits better, but in the outskirts is fine for me: e.g. we're now in the outskirts of Leeds. (On can work as well, but in feels more natural in that example.) I also wouldn't usually say the outskirts of town, because for me town without the article like that means the city centre (cf AmE downtown) and outskirts refers to the edge of a built-up area, close to countryside. I guess this is partly to do with the different structures of British and American conurbations.

Sorry for stating the obvious, but a place can meet the description "you can feel the wind blow, see trees, fields, clouds and sky, hear birds sing and do some jogging along the river" even if it's far away from the next town.