# Optimal vowel:consonant ratio for articulation



## Villeggiatura

What's your ideal vowel:consonant ratio for speaking? What language(s) do you consider exemplary in this regard?
What's your ideal vowel:consonant ratio for singing? What language(s) do you consider exemplary in this regard?

I admire Italian for its cantabilità.
I've noticed some alternations in Italian which increase the v:c ratio (to approximately 1:1?), such as assimilation(ct/pt-> tt, mn-> nn, x-> ss, etc.),  l-vocalization, cluster reduction(nst/xt->st, nct->nt/nz, etc).
There are alternations in Italian that decrease the v:c ratio though, the most common one being apocope, e.g., _Nessun(o) dorma, E Lucevan(o) le stelle, Cielo e mar(e)_.


----------



## Riverplatense

Well, if there were no susurrated sounds, I think also languages like Japanese would be pretty «harmonic». 

However, as far as phonological processes are concerned, I also think that Italian is on top, before all the dialects. Indeed, 

epenthesis (lombard. _*padr → pader_), 

prosthesis (_in Spagna → in Ispagna_), 

epithesis (_film → filmë_), 

hiat deleters (MANTUA → _Mantova_), 

assimilation (like in o. p.), 

elision (_lo amico → l'amico_), 

different articles in order to avoid consonant clusters (*_il stivale → lo stivale_) 

etc.
do a lot in order to maintain the CVCV structure. (So does also apocope, but not in order to allow a 1:1 ratio). However, there still appear a lot of hiats in Italian, like _puoi _etc.

Well, as the ideal ratio is concerned, I'd say on the one hand it's a matter of taste, on the other you can definitely better sing the word _agosto _than _srpen _or _calza_ (even though [-lts-]) than _Strumpf_.


----------



## Riverplatense

However, also in Russian you can find processes like these (*_в мне_ _→ во мне_, *_девушк → девушек_), there's no syllabic _r_ or _l_ any more and in a lot of words you can find a 1:1 ratio, too. One might not think about Russian first when it's about a balanced V:C ratio, but I think one can perfectly do so.


----------



## Nino83

I think too that Romance languages are on the top of the rank.

In Italian
- there are no consonant clusters between stops
- the last consonant in a 2 or 3 consonant cluster can be only /r, l/, which are the "lightest" consonants
- the first in a 3 consonant cluster can be only /r, l, s, n, m/, so /s, n, m/ cannot be at the end of a cluster
- all the other consonant clusters were assimilated in geminated consonants
- vowel ratio is more or less 1:1 (thanks also to the fact that in stressed open syllables vowels are long)
- every word ends in a vowel (except some preposition and article, like con, per, un, il)

So, in Italian, you find open syllables, geminate consonants and only these clusters:
- Cr, Cl; rC, lC, sC, nC, mC
- lCr, sCr, nCr, mCr, rCr (the last in learned words)

Brazilian Portuguese lost some /kt/ and /ks/ cluster in learned words while Spanish retain this cluster: exacto /iˈzatu/ vs. /ekˈsakto/ or ato, acto /ˈatu/ vs. /ˈakto/.
In learned words, Brazilians add an ephentic /i/ when there is a different or non-native, cluster, psicologia /pisikuluʒiɐ/ and, like Italians, add a final vowel at the end of borrowed words ending with a consonant, hot /hɔʧi/, /ɔttᵊ/, this happens also in Japanese, double /daburu/, front /furonto/.
French mantained a ratio 1:1 because both final vowels and consonants where eliminated but some cluster is retained in words like sept /sɛpt/.

Other languages with a ratio 1:1 and a preference for open syllables are Japanese (where only /n/ can be in syllable coda but, like Riverplatense said, unstressed /u/ is often dropped), Finnish and Swahili (Nairobi Swahili doesn't have closed syllables and every word ends with a vowel).

There are also languages with more vowels than consonants, like Hawaiian (65%).

In this work there is a list with the percentage of vowels, sonorants and other consonants

http://english.fullerton.edu/publications/clnarchives/2012spring/Tamb-FinEuph.pdf

The ratio of Russian is something like 42:58, similar to that of Germanic languages, Arabic and other "consonantic" languages and there are consonant clusters like: /pt, bd, tk, kt, gd, vb, fp, ft, zd, pf, tv, dv, gv, fs, vz, vm, vn, dn, kn, mn,, tm, tsv/ with two consonants, /vdr, vzb, vzl, fpr, fsp, zdr, kst, mgl, mgn/ with three consonants, /vzgl, vzdr, fspl, fstr/ with even four consonants and words like взгляд (vzglyat) “glance” вздро́гнуть (vzdrógnut’) “to shutter” всплеск (fsplyesk) “splash” встре́тить (fstryétit’) “to meet; to encounter”.

here and here there are some transcriptions of the first sentence of the Universal declaration of the universal rights in Brazilian and European Portuguese, Italian and Russian, and the proportion of vowels is calculated in these languages.



Villeggiatura said:


> There are alternations in Italian that decrease the v:c ratio though, the most common one being apocope, e.g., _Nessun(o) dorma, E Lucevan(o) le stelle, Cielo e mar(e)_.



These are literary examples but in ordinary (also formal) speech and writing we say "non è venuto nessun*o* alla festa?" and "andiamo a mar*e*?"

While in Spanish and Portuguese the final /e/ after /s, z, l, n, r, d/ is dropped (pace vs. paz, facile vs. fácil, cane vs. can/cão, giocare vs. jugar/jogar, parete vs. pared).



Riverplatense said:


> However, there still appear a lot of hiats in Italian, like _puoi _etc.



In words like _puoi, miei, vuoi_ there is only one hiatus, /pwò-i/, /mjè-i/, /vwò-i/.
The only Italian word having two hiatus I can remember is _aiuola_ /a-ju-ò-la/ but it is commonly pronounced /ajwò-la/
http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/aiuola_(Sinonimi-e-Contrari)/
http://www.dizionario.rai.it/poplemma.aspx?lid=84194&r=1873


----------



## fdb

Riverplatense said:


> do a lot in order to maintain the CVCV structure.



Italian has lots of geminated (doubled) consonants, many of them not indicated in the orthography, e.g. Anna è a casa /anna e akkasa/, syllable structure VCCVVVCCVCV.


----------



## Nino83

fdb said:


> Italian has lots of geminated (doubled) consonants





Villeggiatura said:


> I've noticed some alternations in Italian which increase the v:c ratio (to approximately 1:1?), such as assimilation(ct/pt-> tt, mn-> nn, x-> ss, etc.),  l-vocalization, cluster reduction(nst/xt->st, nct->nt/nz, etc).



Geminate consonants are seen as a simplification of consonant clusters.

It is easier to pronounce _esatto_ /eˈzatto/ (Italian) than _exacto_ /ekˈsakto/ (Spanish) and _sette_ /sɛtte/ (Italian) than _sept_ /sɛpt/ (French) and it sounds less "consonantic".



fdb said:


> many of them not indicated in the orthography, e.g. Anna è a casa /anna e akkasa/, syllable structure VCCVVVCCVCV.



_Anna è a casa_ is pronounced /ˈanna ɛ akˈkaːsa/ (the "a" of "casa" is long), so it is VCCVVVCCV*V*CV, the ratio (v:c) is 7:5 and there are no clusters.

Anyway, it is easier to pronounce /anˈnuːjɔrk/ (Italian) than /adˈnuːjɔrk/ (retaining the Latin /d/ in _ad_, /dn/ cluster) or /atˈnuːjɔɹk/ (English consonant /tn/ cluster), but it doesn't happen before /sC/, _a scuola_ /asˈkwɔːla/ (single /s/, compare with /at ðə skuːɫ/, /tð/ cluster).
Anyway, it is simpler to pronounce  /ˈalla staʦˈʦjoːne/ (/ll/) than /ˈadla staʦˈʦjoːne/ (/dl/, Latin _ad_) or than /at ðə steɪʃn̩/ (/tð/ cluster in English).
And, as we know, also in English one pronounces more often /aððə steɪʃn̩/ (/ðð/) than /at ðə steɪʃn̩/ , i.e /tð/ cluster is often assimilated, because it is simpler to pronounce geminate consonants than clusters with non-liquid consonants.


----------



## ahvalj

Riverplatense said:


> However, also in Russian you can find processes like these (*_в мне_ _→ во мне_, *_девушк → девушек_), there's no syllabic _r_ or _l_ any more and in a lot of words you can find a 1:1 ratio, too. One might not think about Russian first when it's about a balanced V:C ratio, but I think one can perfectly do so.


Actually, in both your examples the vowel always existed (Old East Slavic _въ мьнѣ, дѣвѹшькъ_): the real insertion of a vowel is found in e. g. _полон_ (Old East Slavic _пълнъ_) or _ярмарок_ (German _Jahrmarkt_).

I don't think adult native speakers often encounter problems with the existing syllabification: the phonetic evolution may create complicated consonant or vowel clusters, but, if they persist for several generations, that means the speakers get able to deal with them.


----------



## fdb

Nino83 said:


> _sept_ /sɛpt/ (French)



/sɛt/





Nino83 said:


> _Anna è a casa _is pronounced /ˈanna ɛ akˈkaːsa/ (the "a" of "casa" is long)



long phonetically, not phonologically. There are no minimal pairs for /a/ versus /a:/.


----------



## fdb

ahvalj said:


> I don't think adult native speakers often encounter problems with the existing syllabification: the phonetic evolution may create complicated consonant or vowel clusters, but, if they persist for several generations, that means the speakers get able to deal with them.



I agree totally. The premise of this whole question is un-scientific.


----------



## Nino83

fdb said:


> [sɛt]



Ok, I've found the only exception. 

_Ottimale_ /ottiˈmaːle/ (Italian) is easier to pronounce than _optimal_ /optiˈmal/ (French).



fdb said:


> long phonetically, not phonologically. There are no minimal pairs for /a/ versus /a:/.



We are speaking about phonetics and articulation.
When you analize vowels and consonants in Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish, you count double vowels (in open stressed syllables) and double consonants while in German and Danish you count only single consonants.  



fdb said:


> I agree totally. The premise of this whole question is un-scientific.



For you.
English speakers pronounce _googgirl, goobboy, speebboat, hambag_ instead of _goodgirl, goodboy, speedboat, handbag_ because it is easier to pronounce geminate /gg, bb or /mb/ cluster than /dg, db/ clusters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/pron/progs/prog3.shtml

It is unscientific to say that there is an _optimal ratio_ but we can compare languages with lots of difficult consonant clusters and languages preferring open syllable and assimilation of some consonant clusters.


----------



## Riverplatense

Nino83 said:


> _Anna è a casa_ is pronounced /ˈanna ɛ akˈkaːsa/ (the "a" of "casa" is long), so it is VCCVVVCCV*V*CV, the ratio (v:c) is 7:5 and there are no clusters.





Nino83 said:


> We are speaking about phonetics and articulation.
> When you analize vowels and consonants in Icelandic, Norwegian and Sweden, you count double vowels (in open stressed syllables) and double consonants while in German and Danish you count only single consonants.



But is the quantity of a sound important for the C:V ratio? Can one say in /ak'ka:sa/ there are two /k/? Before all when it's about occlusives, you can't really articulate two of them without something between. I'd say, it's neither a «long /k/» nor two of them, but a delayed occlusion. But even in /laʃ'ʃa:re/ I wouldn't talk about two /ʃ/.



ahvalj said:


> Actually, in both your examples the vowel always existed (Old East Slavic _въ мьнѣ, дѣвѹшькъ_)



Thank you. I didn't know about _дѣвѹшькъ_, but I remember _въ_. Was here, however, the vowel conserved in order to avoid a consonant cluster? I mean, there's also _дѣвица _→ _дѣвиц*ь *_etc., but Russian _девица → девиц _etc.


----------



## Nino83

Riverplatense said:


> But is the quantity of a sound important for the C:V ratio? Can one say in /ak'ka:sa/ there are two /k/? Before all when it's about occlusives, you can't really articulate two of them without something between. I'd say, it's neither a «long /k/» nor two of them, but a delayed occlusion. But even in /laʃ'ʃa:re/ I wouldn't talk about two /ʃ/.



I agree with you. For me, a geminate consonant is less "strong" and easier to pronounce than a consonant cluster and it is not a case that in some languages (English included) clusters are assimilated, because it is simpler, a simplification.


----------



## fdb

Nino83 said:


> a geminate consonant is less "strong" and easier to pronounce than a consonant cluster



Many languages (let us mention just English, French, German) have no trouble with consonant clusters but have lost their historic geminates.


----------



## Nino83

fdb said:


> Many languages (let us mention just English, French, German) have no trouble with consonant clusters but have lost their historic geminates.



English is different, because most consonant clusters were lost (*k*now, ni*gh*t, rei*g*n, *m*nemonic, hym*n*, *p*neumatic, *p*sychology, *p*tomaine, cas*t*le, ans*w*er, *w*rite)  and today, most consonant clusters between words are assimilated/simplified in the spoken language.

Next week = neksweek, bad boy = babboy, and so on.

Also French simplified most consonant clusters: dixit > di, factu > fè, scriptu > ecrì, nocte > nuì.
Clusters like /kt/, /pt/ and so on, in French and Spanish, were reintroduced in learned words. These words were reintroduced with their original pronunciation instead of the current French evolution.

You have words like _acte < actu_ and at the same time _fè (< fait) < factu_. 
The same for _optimale < optimale_ and _attitude < aptitudinem_. 

So, I'm not so sure that French retained consonant clusters.


----------



## ahvalj

Nino83 said:


> I agree with you. For me, a geminate consonant is less "strong" and easier to pronounce than a consonant cluster and it is not a case that in some languages (English included) clusters are assimilated, because it is simpler, a simplification.


One can find examples of the contrary. The Second Germanic consonant shift consisted, in particular, of the dissimilation _-tt->-ʦ-, -pp->-pf-, -kk->-kx-. _In Icelandic, the former long stops acquired preaspiration: _hatt_ [haʰtʰ:], _upp_ [ʏʰpʰ:], _þökk_ [þøʰkʰ:].


Riverplatense said:


> I didn't know about _дѣвѹшькъ_, but I remember _въ_. Was here, however, the vowel conserved in order to avoid a consonant cluster? I mean, there's also _дѣвица _→ _дѣвиц*ь *_etc., but Russian _девица → девиц _etc.


In the sequence of more than one reduced vowel (_ъ_ & _ь_), the penultimate was normally preserved: _в*ъ* мьнѣ > во мнѣ > во мне, дѣвѹш*ь*къ>дѣвушек>девушек, в*ъ*зьмѫ>возьму _(cp. _възѧти>взяти>взять _with the single reduced vowel regularly dropped). This phenomenon is found in most Slavic languages except North-Western ones like Upper and Lower Sorbian or Cassubian (they have _domk, rožk, nokc _etc. vs. _домок, рожок, ноготь _<_ domъkъ, rožьkъ, nogъtь_). I am not sure, however, if it was directly aimed at preventing the appearance of consonant clusters (Nino's favorite Russian word, _взгляд,_ had only one reduced vowel in the prefix, _в*ъ*зглѧдъ,_ so nothing prevented it from dropping): rather it was an automatic result of the interplay of two reduced vowels (like _e_ muet in French): the former lengthened when the subsequent dropped (_je pense_ [ʒpãs] vs. _je ne pense pas_ [ʒønpãspa]).


----------



## Ihsiin

The premise of this thread is, of course, fundamentally flawed. Things are only hard to pronounce if they don't occur, or are relatively rare in your native language. Some languages don't have many constant clusters or much gemination, and others do. A little bilingualism may shed light on this. As a (kind of) speaker of Iraqi Arabic, I have some trouble realising consonant clusters in the syllable coda, because Iraqi has lost this feature (though other dialects of Arabic haven't). So, for example, the word شفت 'I saw' is pronounced _šifit_, rather than _šift_. When speaking Arabic I would have difficulty pronouncing it as _šift_, having to slow down my speech in order to accommodate that consonant cluster. On the other hand, when speaking English, I have no trouble saying the word "shift" whatsoever, because this consonant cluster is a common part of the language.

The point is what we find difficult to pronounce and not depends on the languages we speak, not on the particular phonetics in of themselves.



Nino83 said:


> I agree with you. For me, a geminate consonant is less "strong" and easier to pronounce than a consonant cluster and it is not a case that in some languages (English included) clusters are assimilated, because it is simpler, a simplification.



For _you_, as a native speaker of a language in which there are few consonant clusters and plenty of gemination. This is the point.



Nino83 said:


> And, as we know, also in English one pronounces more often /aððə steɪʃn̩/ (/ðð/) than /at ðə steɪʃn̩/ , i.e /tð/ cluster is often assimilated, because it is simpler to pronounce geminate consonants than clusters with non-liquid consonants.



Do we? I don't think I've heard this. Down my way /aʔ ðə/ or /a ðə/ would be the norm. Gemination would sound weird to me in this context.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Geminate consonants are seen as a simplification of consonant clusters.
> 
> It is easier to pronounce _esatto_ /eˈzatto/ (Italian) than _exacto_ /ekˈsakto/ (Spanish) and _sette_ /sɛtte/ (Italian) than _sept_ /sɛpt/ (French) and it sounds less "consonantic".


I would be very  cautious  with such generalisations. This is highly language specific. For me as a native speaker of German, a language with only very few geminate consonants that can occur only in very few contexts, words like _cappelli_ are infinitely more difficult to pronounce than any consonant cluster could ever be.


----------



## berndf

Ihsiin said:


> The premise of this thread is, of course, fundamentally flawed. Things are only hard to pronounce if they don't occur, or are relatively rare in your native language.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> This is highly language specific.



I agree.

Anyway, it is a common opinion that Spanish is easier to pronounce than, for example, Czech.  

But it is not very important, also if one counts Italian geminate consonants as double consonants, the ratio between vowels and consonants is still 1:1.


----------



## Nino83

Ihsiin said:


> Do we? I don't think I've heard this. Down my way /aʔ ðə/ or /a ðə/ would be the norm. Gemination would sound weird to me in this context.



There is some assimilation in the sound of the first consonant.

"hundred pounds may sound like [hʌndɹɨ*b* pʰaundz]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_audible_release

If the consonant is the same, there is some gemination:

"A further possibility that might be called “no audible release” is the kind of thing we get in grab bag, bad dog, big girl, where articulatorily there is just a single plosive with a long hold: narrowly [ɡræbːæɡ, bædːɒɡ, bɪɡːɜːl]"

http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.it/2009/11/unreleased.html

John Wells is a rielable source.  

These sentences could be a useful tool and could be used to teach to the English speakers how to pronounce geminate consonants.


----------



## Dan2

Some comments in the interest of accuracy...


Nino83 said:


> as we know, also in English one pronounces (for "at the station" -Dan2) more often /aððə steɪʃn̩/ (/ðð/) than /at ðə steɪʃn̩/


Ihsiin expressed disagreement from England, and in the US, not only do we not produce [ðð] in _at the station_ "more often", I believe most people would find it very unnatural, in any style of speech.


Nino83 said:


> English speakers pronounce _googgirl, goobboy, speebboat, hambag_ instead of _goodgirl, goodboy, speedboat, handbag_ because it is easier to pronounce geminate /gg, bb or /mb/ cluster than /dg, db/ clusters.


I might say "Googgirl!" to encourage a young child, but in ordinary speech we don't use the assimilated forms "instead of" the unassimilated ones.  Rather we use them, _optionally_, in faster speech.  Still, in ordinary conversational American speech there is absolutely no unnaturalness in "She's a goo*d g*irl" or "He's a goo*d b*oy", and we perceive no difficulty whatsoever in the [dg]/[db] sequence.

(Your source for the "goob boy" claim is a BBC website, which mentions this sort of assimilation only so that learners of English will be aware that it CAN occur.  And some of the spoken examples on the site sound unnatural to me (_maybe _a BritEng-vs-AmerEng difference).)


----------



## Nino83

Dan2 said:


> (Your source for the "goob boy" claim is a BBC website, which mentions this sort of assimilation only so that learners of English will be aware that it CAN occur.  And some of the spoken examples on the site sound unnatural to me (_maybe _a BritEng-vs-AmerEng difference).)



My source is John Well's phonetic blog, where grab bag, bad dog, big girl are transcribed [ɡræbːæɡ, bædːɒɡ, bɪɡːɜːl].
See #20


----------



## Dan2

No, I quoted you from post 10, which is where you made the claim about "good girl" and "good boy", and directly under that claim of yours is the bbc link.

Your first mention of John Wells is in post 20, where you discuss a different type of case: /b-b/, /d-d/, /g-g/.  I made no comment on that.


----------



## Nino83

Dan2 said:


> No, I quoted you from post 10, which is where you made the claim about "good girl" and "good boy", and directly under that claim of yours is the bbc link.
> 
> Your first mention of John Wells is in post 20, where you discuss a different type of case: /b-b/, /d-d/, /g-g/.  I made no comment on that.



When there are two different consonants between two words, there could be some assimilation (not total, partial), for example, John Wells writes, about _look a*t* *m*e_: 

"in Britain we mostly either just use a glottal stop, [lʊkəʔmi, əʔnuːn], *or else we render the nasal release inaudible *by covering it with a glottal closure. 
What do I mean by “inaudible nasal release”? This can be notated [*lʊkəpʔmi*, ətʔnuːn], or if you prefer [*lʊkəp̚ mi*, ət̚ nuːn]. " 

He writes [*əp̚ mi*] not [*ət̚ mi*]. Maybe I exaggerated with the double [ðð], but there is some partial assimilation in some enviroments, depending on the following consonant.  

http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.it/2009/11/unreleased.html 

Like in _at me_ /t/ can become a /p/ (anticipating the labial consonant /m/), in _good girl_ the /d/ can be pronounced a bit backer, in order to anticipate the pronunciation of the velar consonant /g/. I think it is what they wanted to say in the BBC site.


----------



## TitTornade

Nino83 said:


> Also French simplified most consonant clusters: dixit > di, factu > fè, scriptu > ecrì, nocte > nuì.
> Clusters like /kt/, /pt/ and so on, in French and Spanish, were reintroduced in learned words. These words were reintroduced with their original pronunciation instead of the current French evolution.
> 
> You have words like _acte < actu_ and at the same time _fè (< fait) < factu_.
> The same for _optimale < optimale_ and _attitude < aptitudinem_.
> 
> So, I'm not so sure that French retained consonant clusters.




Hi,
If French didn't retain consonant clusters in words (I'm not sure of that), (complicated) clusters and geminates commonly appear in sentences or groups of words. For example in :
- je trouve que ce livre est pas mal [ʃtʁuvkslivʁepamal]
- Il est debout devant la petite fenêtre [iledbudvɑ̃laptitfnɛtʁ]
- le livre que vous avez commandé [lːivʁkvuzavekomɑ̃de]
- je te l'ai dit [ʃtledi]
- chemin de fer [ʃmɛ̃tfɛʁ]
- coup de pied [kutpje]
- coup de poing [kutpwɛ̃]
- coup de tête [kutːɛːt]
- je sais [ʃse] or [ʃːe]
- ça se chante [sasʃɑ̃ːt]

source : http://research.jyu.fi/phonfr/accueil.html


----------



## Villeggiatura

fdb said:


> ahvalj said: ↑
> I don't think adult native speakers often encounter problems with the existing syllabification: the phonetic evolution may create complicated consonant or vowel clusters, but, if they persist for several generations, that means the speakers get able to deal with them.
> I agree totally. The premise of this whole question is un-scientific.


the science of adaptation perhaps?


Nino83 said:


> It is unscientific to say that there is an _optimal ratio_ but we can compare languages with lots of difficult consonant clusters and languages preferring open syllable and assimilation of some consonant clusters.


the science of facilitation.



Ihsiin said:


> The premise of this thread is, of course, fundamentally flawed. Things are only hard to pronounce if they don't occur, or are relatively rare in your native language.





berndf said:


> I couldn't agree more.



That's why I carefully phrased my questions to be subjective ones: What's *your* ideal vowel:consonant ratio for..  What language(s) do *you* consider exemplary...


----------



## sotos

Ihsiin said:


> The premise of this thread is, of course, fundamentally flawed. Things are only hard to pronounce if they don't occur, or are relatively rare in your native language.



No. People who, for some reason, do not like much talking (like me) tend to omit some parts of words. In Greek the ratio of vowels to consonants is about 1:1 with lots of S, and words are usually lengthy. The talks sounds nice to foreigners, I think, but makes me tired if I have to talk for long


----------



## bearded

Riverplatense said:


> In /ak'ka:sa/  I'd say, it's neither a «long /k/» nor two of them, but a delayed occlusion. .


How can you articulate the 'delayed occlusion' if not by making the occlusive consonant long? Doesn't 'delayed' mean 'prolonged'? Sorry, I cannot undestand the difference.
EDIT: Or do you mean 'postponed' by 'delayed'?  If so, there should be some glottal stop, which I do not think exists in Italian.


----------



## Nino83

TitTornade said:


> Hi,
> If French didn't retain consonant clusters in words (I'm not sure of that), (complicated) clusters and geminates commonly appear in sentences or groups of words. For example in :
> - je trouve que ce livre est pas mal [ʃtʁuvkslivʁepamal]
> - Il est debout devant la petite fenêtre [iledbudvɑ̃laptitfnɛtʁ]
> - le livre que vous avez commandé [lːivʁkvuzavekomɑ̃de]
> - je te l'ai dit [ʃtledi]
> 
> source : http://research.jyu.fi/phonfr/accueil.html



As far as I know, the suppression of the _e muet_ is possible if it doesn't lead to an unpronounceable consonant cluster.

For example, _je ne sais pas_ > _jøn sè pa_ and not _jnsè pa_ because it is difficult to prononce also for French speakers.
In these cases, when there are two consecutive _e muet_ the most common pattern is [ø]/[-], like in _ne me le dis pas > n[ø]m[-]l[ø]di pa_ and not _nmldi pa_, the same in _je ne > jøn_ and not _jn_, but in some sentences, like _je te_ and _ce que_ the pattern is reversed, _ʃtø_ and _skø_, not _ʃt_ and _sk_.
For example, it is _je te dis > ʃtødi_ and not _ʃtdi_, and _est-ce que nous allons > eskønualõ_ and not _esknualõ_.
In _je te l'ai dit_ it is [ʃtledi] because the cluster _sibilant + stop + liquid_ is admitted in French, like in _trime*str*e_.

http://french.about.com/library/pronunciation/bl-emuet.htm
http://french.about.com/library/pronunciation/bl-emuet2.htm

In fact, in the page you linked there are some examples of _assimilation_:
un coup de tête /kutːɛt/ and not /kudtɛt/

http://research.jyu.fi/phonfr/76.html

Also in French, in these cases, there is some assimilation with gemination.

On the other hand, it is true that Northern and Central French, like European Portuguese, with the dropping of _e muet_ is becoming a very "consonantic" language.
In the history of French language, there are these phases:
- the loss of final unstressed vowels but /a/ (which became a schwa): the language is more consonantic
- the loss of final /s/ and (the new) final consonants but /c, r, f, l/: the language became more vocalic
- loss of final and non-final (in open syllables) schwa (_e muet_): the language is becomeing more consonantic again



bearded man said:


> How can you articulate the 'delayed occlusion' if not by making the occlusive consonant long? Doesn't 'delayed' mean 'prolonged'? Sorry, I cannot undestand the difference.
> EDIT: Or do you mean 'postponed' by 'delayed'?  If so, there should be some glottal stop, which I do not think exists in Italian.



This is how John Wells explains gemination:

"In the case of “geminated” plosives, as in Italian _*fatto*_, the hold phase of the plosive lasts for an extra long time. *If you prefer to describe this event as consisting of two entities*, corresponding to each of the phonemes involved (here, /*tt*/), you can say that *the first has no release* and *the second has no approach*. In that sense you can also say that in the English phrase _good dog _the first *d* has no release, the second *d* no approach. *But at the physical level* we really have just a *single plosive with the same three phases as any other plosive, the hold phase simply lasting longer than usual*."

http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.it/2012/03/no-audible-release.html

In other words, when you have a cluster you have two "complete" released consonants, while in the case of geminate consonants, the first lacks release and the second lacks approach.
So, from this point of view, I agree with Riverplatense.
In the cluster there are two complete consonants, while in the case of geminate consonants something lacks and this rises the problem about how to count consonant clusters and geminate consonants and if they are to be counted as two consonants.


----------



## Villeggiatura

Nino83 said:


> .


Could you analyze the reduction of diphthong by dropping  i  
most common: _-ntia > -nza_, e.g.  constantia > costanza  innocentia > innocenza
less common:  _-ria/-rium > -ra/-ro_, e.g.  Ferraria > Ferrara  imperium > impero
uncommon:  latifundium > latifondo


----------



## Nino83

Villeggiatura said:


> Could you analyze the reduction of diphthong by dropping  i
> most common: _-ntia > -nza_, e.g.  constantia > costanza  innocentia > innocenza
> less common:  _-ria/-rium > -ra/-ro_, e.g.  Ferraria > Ferrara  imperium > impero
> uncommon:  latifundium > latifondo



VL _-ntj- > nʦ _(Italian)_ > ns_ (French, Portuguese), _nθj_ (Spanish)
VL _-ario > aro_ (Central and Southern Italian languages), _eiro_ (Portuguese), _èr_ (French, Gallo-Italian languages), _ero_ (Spanish), _ajo_ (Tuscan, Italian)
_latifondo_ is probably learned and derives from _latus_ (big) and _fundus_ (piece of land)



Villeggiatura said:


> I've noticed some alternations in Italian which increase the v:c ratio (to approximately 1:1?), such as assimilation(ct/pt-> tt, mn-> nn, x-> ss, etc.),  l-vocalization



About these, also in Spanish they were assimilated, _nocte > noite > noche_, _ipse > esse > ese, damno > daño, dixi > dije_.
The difference between Italian (and, to a lesser extent, Portuguese) and French/Spanish, is that when Latin learned words were introduced, in Italy (and Portugal, partially) they were pronounced (and then written) with the new pronunciation while in French and Spanish they were pronounced with the ancient Latin pronunciation.
So there are _he*ch*o (done, verb, core vocabulary)_ and _fa*ct*o (fact, noun, learned) < factum_.


----------



## Penyafort

Catalan is average according to the WALS. 

But so is Spanish, and I am pretty sure that the ratio is clearly lower in Catalan, because the dropping of the final vowels in contact with consonants at the beginning of the next word make many clusters occur with a relatively high frequency.

I'd say you can't find in Spanish or Italian a combination such as _crancs frescs*_ [*kr*a*ŋksfr*ɛ*sks*] 'fresh crabs'.

So the variation within the Romance languages is important, probably ranging from Spanish or Sardinian to French.

*In spoken Catalan, _frescos _['frɛskus] is in fact more common.


----------



## Nino83

Penyafort said:


> Catalan is average according to the WALS.



In this site: "The ratio is calculated simply by dividing the number of consonants (C) by the number of vowel qualities (VQ) and will be referred to as the C/VQ ratio." while we're calculating the ratio between vowels and consonants occurring in sentences, i.e if a language prefers open syllables and few consonant clusters or closed syllables and consonant clusters.


----------



## Penyafort

Nino83 said:


> In this site: "The ratio is calculated simply by dividing the number of consonants (C) by the number of vowel qualities (VQ) and will be referred to as the C/VQ ratio." while we're calculating the ratio between vowels and consonants occurring in sentences, i.e if a language prefers open syllables and few consonant clusters or closed syllables and consonant clusters.



I see. 

In any case, the ratio in Catalan has to be clearly lower than in Spanish and Italian. Almost all consonants can be found at the end of a word in Catalan (a bit as in English), forming many types of clusters, while Spanish and Italian tend to prefer open codas in most cases.


----------



## Nino83

Penyafort said:


> In any case, the ratio in Catalan has to be clearly lower than in Spanish and Italian. Almost all consonants can be found at the end of a word in Catalan (a bit as in English), forming many types of clusters, while Spanish and Italian tend to prefer open codas in most cases.



Yes, the percentage of vowels in Catalan is about 42,5% in the first paragraph of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, similar to that of European Portuguese (41%, 43,1 if you don't count /ⁿ/ after nasal vowels in closed syllables) and Russian (42%) and lower than that of Italian (46,8%-48,4%, depending on the accent) and Brazilian Portuguese (47,9%, 50 if you don't count /ⁿ/ after nasal vowels in closed syllables).



Spoiler: transcription



Standard French:
kõsideˈʁɒ̃ k(ə) la ʁ(ə)kɔnɛˈsɒ̃s(ə) d(ə) la diɲiˈte in(ə)ˈʁɒ̃t(ə) a tu le ˈmɒ̃bʁ(ə) d(ə) la faˈmij(ə) ymɛn(ə) e d(ə) lœʁ dʁwa eˈgo e inaljeˈnabl(ə) kõstiˈty l(ə) fõd(ə)ˈmɒ̃ d(ə) la libɛʁˈte d(ə) la ʒusˈtis(ə) e d(ə) la pɛ dɒ̃ l(ə) ˈmõd(ə)
Traditional Southern French:
konsideˈʁan kə la ʁəkɔnɛˈsansə də la diɲiˈte inəˈʁantə a tu le ˈmanbʁə də la faˈmijə ymɛnə e də lœʁ dʁwa eˈgo e inaljeˈnablə konstiˈty lə fondəˈman də la libɛʁˈte də la ʒusˈtisə e də la pɛ dan lə ˈmondə
Spanish:
konsiðeˈɾando ke el rikonoθiˈmjento de la dixniˈðað ineˈɾente a ˈtodos los ˈmjemβɾos de la faˈmilja uˈmana i de sus deˈɾeʧos iˈɣwales i inaljeˈnaβles konstituje el funðamento de la  liβeɾˈtað de la xusˈtiθja i de la paθ en el ˈmunðo
Catalan:
kunsiðəˈɾant kəɫ  rəsˈpektə ə lə diŋniˈtat inəˈɾen ə  toʦ əɫs ˈmembɾəs də lə fəˈmiljə uˈmanə i əɫs ˈdɾεt iˈɣwaɫs i inəljəˈnabbləs də kəðəsˈkun kunstituˈejʃ əɫ funəˈmen də lə ʎiβəɾˈtat də lə ʒusˈtisjə i də lə paw dəɫ mon
Italian:
konsideˈraːto ke il rikonoʃʃiˈmento ˈdella diɳɳiˈta ineˈrɛnte a tˈtutti i membri della famiʎʎa uˈmaːna e dei ˈloːro diˈritti uˈgwaːli ed inaljeˈnaːbili kostituˈiʃʃe il fondaˈmento ˈdella liberˈta ˈdella ʤusˈtiʦʦja e ˈdella ˈpaːʧe nel ˈmondo
Brazilian Portuguese:
kõsideˈɾɐ̃du ki u hekoɲesiˈmẽtu da ʤigniˈdaʤi ineˈɾẽʧi a ˈtɔduz uz ˈmẽbɾus da faˈmiljɐ uˈmɐ̃nɐ i dus ˈseu̯s ʤiˈɾei̯tuz igwˈai̯s i inaljeˈnavei̯s kõsʧiˈtui̯ u fũdaˈmẽtu da libehˈdaʤi, da ʒusˈʧisɐ i da ˈpai̯s nu ˈmũdu
European Portuguese:
kõsidˈɾɐ̃d(u) ku ʀkuɲ(ɨ)siˈmẽt(u) dɐ dign(ɨ)ˈdad in(ɨ)ˈɾẽt ɐ ˈtɔd(u)z uʒ ˈmẽbɾ(u)ʒ dɐ fɐˈmiljɐ uˈmɐnɐ i duʃ ˈseu̯ʒ dˈɾei̯t(u)z igwˈai̯ʃ i inɐljeˈnavei̯ʃ kõst(ɨ)ˈtui̯ u fũdɐˈmẽt(u) dɐ libɾˈdad da ʒusˈtisɐ i dɐ ˈpai̯ʒ nu ˈmũd(u)
Russian:
prʲɪnʲɪˈmaɪ̯æ vɐ vʲnʲɪˈmanʲɪɪ̯ə ʃto prʲɪˈznanʲɪɪ̯ə dɐˈstoɪnstvɐ prʲɪˈsuɕ:əvɐ ˈfʲsʲem ˈʨlʲenɐm ʨɪłɐˈvʲeʨɪskɐɪ̯ sʲɪmʲˈji ɪ ˈravnɨx ɨ nʲɪɐtˈjemlʲɪmɨx ˈpraf ɨx jɪvˈlʲæɪ̯ɪʦɐ ɐsˈnovɐɪ̯ svɐˈbodɨ sprɐvʲɪdˈlʲivɐsʲtʲɪ ɪ fʲsʲɪˈopɕɪvɐ ˈmʲirɐ ɪ

from: http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/portuguese-and-russian-do-they-sound-similar.1146528/page-3



Brazilian Portuguese: 47,9% 78:85 (78:78 50% without /ⁿ/)
Italian: 46,8% 88:100 (88:95 48,4% Northern accent)
Traditional Southern French: 45,9% 68:80 (with all /ə/ pronounced)
Spanish: 43,6% 78:101 (80:99 44,7% if we count /j/ of diphthongized Latin /ɛ/ in closed syllables like a vowel)
Catalan: 42,5% 70:95
European Portuguese: 59:85 41% (59:78 43,1% without /ⁿ/)
Standard French: 48:70 40,7%


----------



## franknagy

In Hungarian both extremal cases occur:
fiaiéi = it belongs to his/her sons,
strand = beach,
stressz. More here:http://www.gyakorikerdesek.hu/kultu...-szo-amiben-4-massalhangzo-all-egymas-mellett

The usual vowel:consonant ratio is >50%.


----------



## Nino83

franknagy said:


> The usual vowel:consonant ratio is >50%.



But Hungarian is considered, among Finno-Ugric languages, to have one of the lowest coefficients.
See the table at page 13: 42% of vowels vs. 49,5% of Finnish.  

http://english.fullerton.edu/publications/clnarchives/2012spring/Tamb-FinEuph.pdf

Can you count how many *phonetic* vowels and consonants there are in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Hungarian?



> Tekintettel arra, hogy az emberiség családja minden egyes tagja méltóságának, valamint egyenlő és elidegeníthetetlen jogainak elismerése alkotja a szabadság, az igazság és a béke alapját a világon



In the following Finnish text,



> Kun ihmiskunnan kaikkien jäsenten luonnollisen arvon ja heidän yhtäläisten ja luovuttamattomien oikeuksiensa tunnustaminen on vapauden, oikeudenmukaisuuden ja rauhan perustana maailmassa



there are 77 vowels and 88 consonants, so 46,7% are vowels, similarly to Italian.


----------



## francisgranada

franknagy said:


> ...  fiaiéi = it belongs to his/her sons,
> strand = beach,
> stressz.


These examples are atypical, I dare say statistically irrelevant:

1. _Fiaiéi_ is the result of "agglutinating" more formants (affixes/suffixes) to _fi: fi*a* = _his son_, fia*i*=_his sons, _fiai*é* = _of his sons (possession of _one_ object), _fiaié_*i*_ = _of his sons (possession of _more _objects).

2. _Strand_ and _stressz_ are (relatively) recent loanwords. Consonant clusters at the beginning of words of Hungarian origin or in old loanwords are impossible. See e.g. _iskola_ (< Lat. _schola_) or _paraszt_ (< Slavic _prost_-).



Nino83 said:


> ... See the table at page 13: 42% of vowels vs. 49,5% of Finnish.


The percentage of vowels in Finnish is surely higher than in Hungarian. In my opinion the main reasons are:

1. Loss of the thematic vowels at the end of the stems in Hungarian some 1000 (and more) years ago. See e.g. Hung. _kéz, víz, szarv _and Finnish _käsi, vesi, sarvi _(meaning _hand, water, horn _respectively).

2. A lower variety of phonetic consonants in Finnish (about 16) compared with Hungarian (about 25).


Villeggiatura said:


> There are alternations in Italian that decrease the v:c ratio though, the most common one being apocope, e.g., _Nessun(o) dorma, E Lucevan(o) le stelle, Cielo e mar(e).... _


I don't think that for Italians _Nessun dorma, Lucevan le stelle, Cielo e mar_ are  more difficult to articulate than _Nessun*o* dorma, Lucevan*o* le stelle, Cielo e mar*e*_ ... In these concrete examples, perhaps, the opposite is true. For example, the cluster _n+d_ (in _nessu*n d*orma_) is not difficult to articulate, while an "extra"  syllable (in case of _nessu*no* dorma_) takes a "plus effort" and changes also the intonation.

In other words, the _vowel:consonant ratio_ is not the only criterion for the easier "articulability". Even more, I think the Italian _apocope_ in many cases renders easier the pronunciation (at least for an Italian speaking person). Of course, the _apocope_ (or omitting the final vowel/syllable) in poetry or songs serves  also for other reasons, like rhyming etc., but this is an other question. Finally, also the French liaison, that practically means a "plus consonant" in the pronunciation, makes the articulation easier (in my opinion).



Nino83 said:


> ... Can you count how many *phonetic* vowels and consonants there are in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Hungarian? ...


 I've tried to do it, my result is 72 vowels and 83 consonants, i.e. 46,45 % of vowels.


----------



## Nino83

fdb said:


> long phonetically, not phonologically. There are no minimal pairs for /a/ versus /a:/.



After thinking about it, I'd say that if you don't count long and short vowels in Standard Italian, you have not to count /ʦ ʣ ʃ ɲ ʎ/ that are always geminated (infact the definite article _lo_ is required instead of _il_ when a word begins with one of these consonants) and also _raddoppio fonosintattico_, that is not phonemic.

So, these vowels and consonants are double if you write phonetically and single if you write phonemically.


----------



## ahvalj

I have a feeling that standard Finnish is indeed the most vocalic modern European language (colloquial Finnish is a different thing). It doesn't quite compare to the Balkanic languages of the early Antiquity in this respect (like Homeric Greek with forms like _ἀάατον_ — http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a)a/aton&la=greek&prior=a)/eqlon), but is nevertheless in the same class. In addition to the preservation of most Uralic vowels, Finnish has lost many intervocalic consonants during the last millennium, which has produced long vowels in non-initial syllables as well as numerous vowel clusters, e. g.:

Karelian _kirvehen_ ~ Finnish _kirveen_
Karelian_ hambahat ~ _Finnish_ hampaat_
*_korketata_>*_korkeδaδa_>_korkeaa
*ajatak>*ajaδak>ajaa
*melaitak>*meloiδak>*meloδak>meloa_

Let's consider the declension of _vako_ (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vako). We find:

Nom. Sg. _vako_
Gen. Sg. _*vakon>vaon_
Part. Sg. _*vakota>vakoa_
Ill. Sg. _*vakosen>vakoon_

Nom. Pl. _*vakot>vaot_
Gen. Pl. _*vakoiten>vakojen_
Part. Pl. _*vakoita>vakoja_
Ill. Pl. _*vakoisen>*vakoihen>vakoihin
_
For _korkea_ (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/korkea) we find:

Nom. Sg. _*korketa>korkea_
Gen. Sg. _*korketan>korkean_
Part. Sg. _*korketata>korkeata~korkeaa_
Ill. Sg. _*korketasen>korkeaan_

Nom. Pl. _*korketat>korkeat_
Gen. Pl. _*korketaiten>*korketiten>korkeiden_
Part. Pl. _*korketaita>*korketita>korkeita_
Ill. Pl. _*korketaisen>*korketisen>*korkeδihen>korkeihin_

Actually, the double orthographic vowels phonemically are simply long ones, but the length in Finnish is more pronounced than e. g. in English, so acoustically they may be perceived as real double vowels. Also, morphemic boundaries may pass between components of the long vowel (e. g. the Infinitive _*-tak/*-täk_>_-a/-ä_ is a separate vowel in most cases, e. g. _sano*a*, istu*a*, kysy*ä*,_ but part of the long vowel when added to _a_ or _ä:_ _aja*a*, elä*ä*_).


----------



## rayloom

Nino83 said:


> I think too that Romance languages are on the top of the rank.
> 
> In Italian
> - there are no consonant clusters between stops
> - the last consonant in a 2 or 3 consonant cluster can be only /r, l/, which are the "lightest" consonants
> - the first in a 3 consonant cluster can be only /r, l, s, n, m/, so /s, n, m/ cannot be at the end of a cluster
> - all the other consonant clusters were assimilated in geminated consonants
> - vowel ratio is more or less 1:1 (thanks also to the fact that in stressed open syllables vowels are long)
> - every word ends in a vowel (except some preposition and article, like con, per, un, il)
> 
> So, in Italian, you find open syllables, geminate consonants and only these clusters:
> - Cr, Cl; rC, lC, sC, nC, mC
> - lCr, sCr, nCr, mCr, rCr (the last in learned words)
> 
> Brazilian Portuguese lost some /kt/ and /ks/ cluster in learned words while Spanish retain this cluster: exacto /iˈzatu/ vs. /ekˈsakto/ or ato, acto /ˈatu/ vs. /ˈakto/.
> In learned words, Brazilians add an ephentic /i/ when there is a different or non-native, cluster, psicologia /pisikuluʒiɐ/ and, like Italians, add a final vowel at the end of borrowed words ending with a consonant, hot /hɔʧi/, /ɔttᵊ/, this happens also in Japanese, double /daburu/, front /furonto/.
> French mantained a ratio 1:1 because both final vowels and consonants where eliminated but some cluster is retained in words like sept /sɛpt/.
> 
> Other languages with a ratio 1:1 and a preference for open syllables are Japanese (where only /n/ can be in syllable coda but, like Riverplatense said, unstressed /u/ is often dropped), Finnish and Swahili (Nairobi Swahili doesn't have closed syllables and every word ends with a vowel).
> 
> There are also languages with more vowels than consonants, like Hawaiian (65%).
> 
> In this work there is a list with the percentage of vowels, sonorants and other consonants
> 
> http://english.fullerton.edu/publications/clnarchives/2012spring/Tamb-FinEuph.pdf
> 
> The ratio of Russian is something like 42:58, similar to that of Germanic languages, Arabic and other "consonantic" languages and there are consonant clusters like: /pt, bd, tk, kt, gd, vb, fp, ft, zd, pf, tv, dv, gv, fs, vz, vm, vn, dn, kn, mn,, tm, tsv/ with two consonants, /vdr, vzb, vzl, fpr, fsp, zdr, kst, mgl, mgn/ with three consonants, /vzgl, vzdr, fspl, fstr/ with even four consonants and words like взгляд (vzglyat) “glance” вздро́гнуть (vzdrógnut’) “to shutter” всплеск (fsplyesk) “splash” встре́тить (fstryétit’) “to meet; to encounter”.
> 
> here and here there are some transcriptions of the first sentence of the Universal declaration of the universal rights in Brazilian and European Portuguese, Italian and Russian, and the proportion of vowels is calculated in these languages.



The first article of the Universal declaration of human rights in Arabic:

يولد جميع الناس أحراراً متساوين في الكرامة والحقوق، وقد وهبوا عقلاً وضميراً وعليهم أن يعامل بعضهم بعضاً بروح الإخاء

yūladu ǧamīʕu n-nāsi ʔaḥrāran mutasāwīna fi l-karāmati wa l-ḥuqūq. wa qad wuhibū ʕaqlan wa ḍamīran wa ʕalayhim ʔan yuʕāmila baʕḍuhum baʕḍan bi-rūḥi l-ʔiḫāʔ

Vowels: 67 counting double vowels (otherwise 54)
Consonants: 73
Sonorants: 30

Vowels 47.86%
Sonorants 21.43%
Euphony 69.29%


----------

