A near-open back vowel? ɔ̞ or ɔɒ

[sunandshadow]

Looking at the IPA vowel chart, there seems to be a missing vowel that prevents it from being symmetrical. There is a near-open front vowel, æ, a near open mid-vowel, ɐ, but not near-open back vowel. Why? Does this vowel exist theoretically, or is there some reason it can't exist? Would you write it as ɔ̞ or ɔɒ (should be a digraph there)?

Edit: whoops wrong symbol

[jmcd]

I expect the reason it lacks a symbol is that /æ/ is used in RP English and possibly other languages whereas there are no famous languages with this. ɔ̞ would be used for this. ɔ̝ is for raising, not lowering. And digraphs are basically foreign to IPA.

Also, have some gherkins and chai!

[sunandshadow]

Oh I copied the wrong symbol. *blush* let me just edit that...

And thanks! *helps self to pickles and tea*

[Hallow XIII]

Yes, the IPA chart is not symmetrical and generally thinking of the symbols on it as anything but very vague representations of sounds kept apart in different languages leads to insanity. For most of the things that are left out the reasoning for this is that there is no language that makes use of it (or that it's uncommon; in many cases it's a bit arbitrary or misguided though -- for instance, their persistent refusal to cultivate distinct symbols for alveolo-palatal and dorsal-palatal consonants is a perennial favorite).

Anyway. Hello, have some pickles and tea, and direct your attention to the list of good resources for people getting started. Oh wait. We don't have such a thing. Well, some day.

[Ngohe]

I think my <lot>-vowel is somewhere between /ɒ/ and /ɔ/. But anyway, I agree with the preceding poster:

Yes, the IPA chart is not symmetrical and generally thinking of the symbols on it as anything but very vague representations of sounds kept apart in different languages leads to insanity.

/ɔ/ or /ɒ/ can serve well as broad or phonemic representations of the <lot>-vowel. If phonetic detail is needed, one can write [ɔ̞] or [ɒ̝].

However, it would be unlikely for a language to contrast /ɔ/ and/or /ɒ/ with some intermediate vowel (unless something else such as length is involved) - since back vowels are generally more difficult to tell apart than front vowels.

[sangi39]

I did attempt to answer this, but I think it got a bit convoluted. Either way, it was basically what Ngohe said (although Ngohe said it in a way much better than I possibly could )

[Salmoneus]

Such a symbol would only be needed for languages that had three low, fully back, all equally rounded, equally long vowels with equal tongue root advancement, sulcalisation, pharyngealisation, voicing and so forth. Show me a language that has three low, fully back, all equally rounded, equally long vowels with equal tongue root advancement, sulcalisation, pharyngealisation, voicing and so forth, and then we'll talk about what symbols to use to represent them...

[sunandshadow]

@Salmoneus What about describing the sounds of a language so someone unfamiliar with that language can pronounce it properly? If I used ɔ, which the language doesn't actually have, then anyone reading my "pronunciation guide" would actually be pronouncing the language wrong.

[Dewrad]

You'd annotate it. Something like "the sound denoted /ɔ/ in the table above has a slightly lower realisation than cardinal /ɔ/, closer in height to that of cardinal /æ/" for example.

[sunandshadow]

I feel like I understand better now how this stuff with the IPA creating symbols and using them to communicate sounds works. ^_^ I was under the mistaken impression that it was objective and more or less perfect because it's such a widely agreed-on authority and has been for years, but instead it seems to be more of a "we made it up as we went along and it mostly works" kind of system.

[Dewrad]

Just wait until you start looking at theories of syntax!

[Salmoneus]

I feel like I understand better now how this stuff with the IPA creating symbols and using them to communicate sounds works. ^_^ I was under the mistaken impression that it was objective and more or less perfect because it's such a widely agreed-on authority and has been for years, but instead it seems to be more of a "we made it up as we went along and it mostly works" kind of system.

The key is just that there are an infinite number of possible vowels, because they exist in a continuum, not a series of discrete positions. It's impossible to identify an infinite number of things 'perfectly' with a finite (and indeed quite small) set of symbols. Even if it were, it would be counterproductive, because the actual realisation of vowels varies between dialects, between men and women, between adults and children sometimes, between individuals, depending on phonological context, probably depending on prosody and pragmatically-determined speech style, and so on.

The symbol we use to describe the vowels is therefore just meant to give you a general idea of whereabouts the sound most often is. But the details of that 'whereabouts' will vary between languages, dialects, populations and so on.

More pedantic descriptions may give extra detail, as Dew shows, and if the vowels are being discussed specifically you'll often get a diagram showing the general location of the vowels within the vowel-space.

[Drydic]

I feel like I understand better now how this stuff with the IPA creating symbols and using them to communicate sounds works. ^_^ I was under the mistaken impression that it was objective and more or less perfect because it's such a widely agreed-on authority and has been for years, but instead it seems to be more of a "we made it up as we went along and it mostly works" kind of system.

Wait until you find out that ʌ is basically never used in its cardinal position, and that ɐ is all over a triangle extending south from schwa. Which, itself, according to many people can never ever ever be stressed, because then it would be ʌ!

And you don't even want to know how bad a is.

[sunandshadow]

Eheh, I have to finish my consonants before I can delve into syntax. I'm looking forward to syntax though, because my original inspirations for what the language could be like mostly fall into that category.

[Travis B.]

I feel like I understand better now how this stuff with the IPA creating symbols and using them to communicate sounds works. ^_^ I was under the mistaken impression that it was objective and more or less perfect because it's such a widely agreed-on authority and has been for years, but instead it seems to be more of a "we made it up as we went along and it mostly works" kind of system.

Wait until you find out that ʌ is basically never used in its cardinal position, and that ɐ is all over a triangle extending south from schwa. Which, itself, according to many people can never ever ever be stressed, because then it would be ʌ!

Except that Inland North dialects do use [ʌ], both for the traditional stressed /ʌ/ and for most (but not typically all) instances of the /ɑ/ in /ɑr/ before a voiceless obtruent!

[jmcd]

Eheh, I have to finish my consonants before I can delve into syntax. I'm looking forward to syntax though, because my original inspirations for what the language could be like mostly fall into that category.

I am disagree: You can work on all parts of your language at any time you feel like it. You don't need to do it in a specific order. This was a mistake I made when I started conlanging (even if I don't really have much in the way of conwork to show I've learnt from it).

One might think that it's doesn't work to do syntax or morphology before phonology and phonetics are finished because you don't which forms you are using yet but you can always go back and change your words later, or else leave algebra-like placeholders and come back to it. Or even just be a bit vague in your morphosyntax initially and then fill in the details when you've completed the sound aspects.

[vec]

Yeah, nowadays I *start* with syntax more or less. Syntax affects prosody which affects phonology.

[Drydic]

I just don't treat anything as set in stone until I have at least 5 pages' worth of material. And it's not automatic then either. Actually I just don't treat a whole lot as set in stone.