# /e/ e /ɛ/, in italiano [, francese] e in inglese



## Marsario

Ciao a tutti,
qua sto impazzendo tra i simboli fonetici, in particolare con /e/ e /ɛ/.
Partiamo con gli esempi che dà WR (http://www.wordreference.com/it/Pronuncia-Inglese.aspx):
Come esempi di parole con il suono /e/ vengono dati "ten" (per l'inglese) e "verde" (per l'italiano).
Come esempio di parole con il suono /ɛ/ viene dato "letto" (per l'italiano).
Ora, c'è qualcosa che non quadra: ma sono l'unico a cui la "e" di "ten" sembra pronunciata come quella di "letto" e non come quelle di "verde"?
Ho pensato di aver sempre pronunciato "ten" nel modo sbagliato, allora mi sono rifatto a un dizionario di pronuncia inglese (http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=ten&submit=Submit). Niente da fare: "ten" viene pronunciato con la "e" aperta che io associo a "letto".
Allora ho pensato di aver sempre pronunciato "verde" e "letto" nel modo sbaglio: può accadere, magari la mia pronuncia lombarda non è quella italiana corretta. Allora ho preso wikictionary e ho cercato le due parole. Niente da fare: "letto" (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/letto#Italian) e "verde" (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/verde#Italian) sono pronunciati come pensavo: il primo con la "e" aperta il secondo con le "e" chiuse.
Cionosostante se si cercano le vocali inglesi (English Received Pronunciation) viene solitamente elencato il suono /e/ ma non il suono /ɛ/.
Come si spiega?


----------



## berndf

Moderator note: Thread moved to EHL where questions about comparative phonetics are in scope.


----------



## berndf

In modern RP, /e/ as in "day" /deɪ/ and /ɛ/ as in "bed" /bɛd/ have become so close (/e/ lowered and /ɛ/ raised to a middle position close to the Spanish /e/) that no stable distinction is possible any more. Therefore, many pronouncing dictionaries for British English use only the symbol /e/ for both: /deɪ/ and /bed/. See vowel charts here.


----------



## merquiades

Ciao Marsario.  Non sono sicuro di pronunciare bene la vocale /ɛ/ aperte di "letto" e "verdi" in italiano (diccono che ogni regione italiana è differente), e in inglese non ho neppure la pronuncia (English Received Pronunciation).  Però, so che pronuncio la "e" di bed, ted, red, said, dead, ben, den, men etc. con la vocale /ɛ/, la stessa che troviamo in "letto", "detto" ed in francese "saine, Sète, sept, bête".  Per me, forse ci sono piccole differenze, ma è più o meno la stessa vocale.  Anch'io ho notato fa tempo che la transcrizione inglese utilizza /e/ (non /ɛ/), francamente non so perché, e non m'importa molto perché non c'é contrasto in inglese fra /e/ e /ɛ/ (tipo pésca, pèsca in italiano). Infatti sempre dico /ɛ/ ma scrivo /e/. Il vero contrasto in inglese è fra /e/ (/ɛ/) e /ei/:  they, day, may. 
Mi domando se in Inghilterra si dice /bed/, ma non mi suona, (Scozia?) però sicuramente qualcun'altro te lo dirà....   Buona sera a te in Finlandia.




> Publicado por berndf
> In modern RP, /e/ as in "say" /deɪ/ and /ɛ/ as in "bed" /bɛd/ have become so close (/e/ lowered and /ɛ/ raised to a middle position close to the Spanish /e/) that no stable distinction is possible any more. Therefore, many pronouncing dictionaries for British English use only the symbol /e/ for both: /deɪ/ and /bed/. See vowel charts here.


Ok, you beat me. Thanks for the chart, Berndf


----------



## Marsario

Hi! Thank you both! 


> In modern RP, /e/ as in "day" /deɪ/ and /ɛ/ as in "bed" /bɛd/ have  become so close (/e/ lowered and /ɛ/ raised to a middle position close  to the Spanish /e/) that no stable distinction is possible any more.  Therefore, many pronouncing dictionaries for British English use only  the symbol /e/ for both: /deɪ/ and /bed/.


That explains everything! And thank you a lot for the link. In some way I had missed it: I checked wikipedia’s pages concerning English Vowels, English Phonology and many more, but I did not think about checking the one on RP!
Cheers!

(Ah, by the way, thank you a lot for moving the thread to this forum!)


----------



## berndf

You are welcome.


----------



## Outsider

From what I understand also, English /e/ is most often realized as a mid vowel, whereas Italian /e/ is close-mid, so there is a slight but possibly perceptible difference between the two.


----------



## berndf

Outsider said:


> From what I understand also, English /e/ is most often realized as a mid vowel, whereas Italian /e/ is close-mid


Yes, that's exactly what has been said before.


Outsider said:


> so there is a slight but possibly perceptible difference between the two.


I can assure you for native speakers of languages with phonemic /e/-/ɛ/ distinction (like Marsario and myself), this is much more than a "slight" difference.


----------



## Outsider

berndf said:


> Yes, that's exactly what has been said before.


I apologize for being repetitive.



berndf said:


> I can assure you for native speakers of languages with phonemic /e/-/ɛ/ distinction (like Marsario and myself), this is much more than a "slight" difference.


Portuguese has that distinction too, yet it took me a while to realise that the English (and Spanish) /e/ was different.


----------



## berndf

Outsider said:


> I apologize for being repetitive.


No need, I you wanted to point out, for the benefit of future readers, that your statement was not a contradiction but a confirmation of what had been said before.


Outsider said:


> Portuguese has that distinction too, yet it took me a while to realise that the English (and Spanish) /e/ was different.


Oh, I see. By the way: For me, the British English /e/ is much closer to [ɛ] than to [e]. Like Marsario, I found transcriptions like "bed" /bed/ very confusing when I first encountered them. Also, I never really understood the transcription "day" /deɪ/ until I heard /eɪ/ in earlier RP recordings where it was clearly [eɪ]. The pronunciation of this diphthong in RP really changed since Jones' days.


----------



## Youngfun

I'm not an expert in English phonology, but I'd say that in RP (and I guess GA too) the sound [e] doesn't exist alone, unless it's followed by i [ei].
So I pronounce all English "single" /e/ or /ɛ/ as [ɛ]. But I do pronounce day as [dei].

For example when English speakers pronounce Italian words they don't have trouble pronouncing the open e /ɛ/, but when they encounter a closed /e/, they will change it to [ɛ] or to [ei].

@merquiades:
I think in Standard Italian "detto" has closed e /'detto/


----------



## berndf

Youngfun said:


> I'm not an expert in English phonology, but I'd say that in RP (and I guess GA too) the sound [e] doesn't exist alone, unless it's followed by i [ei].


Yes, the monophthongs [e] and [e:] don't exists in RP and GA any more. In RP (or what is now called RP) the sound moved from [e:] to [eɪ] in the second half of the 19th century. If you listen to how Rex Harrison as Prof. Higgins in My Fair Lady says "In Sp*ai*n the r*ai*n st*ay*s m*ai*nly in the pl*a*ne" the sound is clearly [eɪ]. But if you listen to modern RP speakers, it usually sounds closer to [ɛɪ]. I don't know, if this is due to AE influence or just the result of an ongoing progressive shift.



Youngfun said:


> But I do pronounce day as [dei].


I've never heard /eɪ/ being pronounced [ei]. That sound totally unfamiliar to me.


----------



## merquiades

Youngfun said:


> I'm not an expert in English phonology, but I'd say that in RP (and I guess GA too) the sound [e] doesn't exist alone, unless it's followed by i [ei].
> So I pronounce all English "single" /e/ or /ɛ/ as [ɛ]. But I do pronounce day as [dei].
> 
> For example when English speakers pronounce Italian words they don't have trouble pronouncing the open e /ɛ/, but when they encounter a closed /e/, they will change it to [ɛ] or to [ei].
> 
> @merquiades:
> I think in Standard Italian "detto" has closed e /'detto/



I make the difference [ɛ] / [eI] like you say.  Thanks for the info about "detto".  It's always hard to know what's open or closed in Italian since they don't use accent marks.  I've tended to pronounce open before double consonants and it's not systematic.




			
				 Berndf said:
			
		

> If you listen to how Rex Harrison as Prof. Higgins in My Fair Lady says "In Spain the rain stays mainly in the plane" the sound is clearly [eɪ]. But if you listen to modern RP speakers, it usually sounds closer to [ɛɪ]. I don't know, if this is due to AE influence or just the result of an ongoing progressive shift.



To me the British vowels sounds closer to /aI/ but not quite that.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> To me the British vowels sounds closer to /aI/ but not quite that.


/eɪ/ = [ɐɪ] is typical for SW accents (especially London) and is non-RP. That's why Prof. Higgins let Eliza Doolittle practice the sentence "In Sp*ai*n the r*ai*n st*ay*s m*ai*nly in the pl*a*ne".


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> /eɪ/ = [ɐɪ] is typical for SW accents (especially London) and is non-RP. That's why Prof. Higgins let Eliza Doolittle practice the sentence "In Sp*ai*n the r*ai*n st*ay*s m*ai*nly in the pl*a*ne".



Perhaps RP is changing.  The people I've heard saying [ɐɪ], I wouldn't exactly call them folksy or street talkers, some give off a rather posh allure.


----------



## koniecswiata

As a speaker of American English, I can only add that the vowel in "ten" (like Italian "detto") and the vowel in "day" are very different.  Day would be like Italian "dei" (approximately).  In fact the "vowel" in "day" is really a dipthong and not a true vowel as in the Italian sense--however, it is traditionally analyzed as if it were a vowel in English.  It could be said that the vowel /e/ in English words such as "day", "take" or "made" does not exist, but is rather realized as a dipthong similar to Italian "ei".  This is in General American; there are some regions that DO pronounced it like a long vowel and not a dipthong--the Upper Midwest for example.  There, the General American pronunciation of "take" /teik/ would sound close to the vowel in "verde" /e/ or German "dem" /dem/--but this is not the standard US American pronunciation.  
I can't really speak about RP, but Berndf's comments surprise me since listening to speakers from Britain gives me the clear impression that they do distinguish between /ei/ "day" and /e/ "ten".  Sorry that I can't make the exact phonetic symbols on my keyboard.


----------



## berndf

koniecswiata said:


> I can't really speak about RP, but Berndf's comments surprise me since listening to speakers from Britain gives me the clear impression that they do distinguish between /ei/ "day" and /e/ "ten".  Sorry that I can't make the exact phonetic symbols on my keyboard.


Of course /e/ is phonemically distinct from /eɪ/; that has never been the issue in this thread. The question was whether the starting point of the glide, i.e. the /e/ in /eɪ/, is recognizable different in quality from the monophthong /e/.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> Perhaps RP is changing.


Perhaps. If wouldn't be the first time that features of London accent eventually became standard (e.g. non-rhoticity). But as it is today, I would be surprised it many speakers regraded /eɪ/ = [ɐɪ] as non-regional.


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> Perhaps. If wouldn't be the first time that features of London accent eventually became standard (e.g. non-rhoticity). But as it is today, I would be surprised it many speakers regraded /eɪ/ = [ɐɪ] as non-regional.



Agreed.  At the least the stigma attached to it has disappeared.  Though it's just literature, My Fair Lady shows that at one time people had to drop that accent to seem educated.


----------



## Dan2

koniecswiata said:


> As a speaker of American English, I can  only add that the vowel in "ten" (like Italian "detto") and the vowel in  "day" are very different.


I would've used "letto", not "detto", to make this point.  (I believe these words have different vowels in standard Italian.)  The first part of "letto" sounds very much like Amer Eng "let", definitely not like "late".  The first part of "detto" is harder to describe in Amer Eng terms, but forced to choose (and depending on the Italian speaker) I'd say it's more like "date" than like "debt".





merquiades said:


> berndf said:
> 
> 
> 
> But as it is today, I would be surprised it many speakers regraded /eɪ/ = [ɐɪ] as non-regional.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  At the least the stigma attached to it has disappeared.
Click to expand...

Merq's comment strikes me as a non-sequitur.  Bernd says he'd be _surprised_ if many speakers regarded [ɐɪ] as _non_-regional.  I.e., he'd be surprised if many regarded it as standard.  So he believes that most regard it non-standard.  With which I agree.  I _don't_ believe that the stigma has disappeared.  In my experience, the more highly educated a British speaker is, the less likely they are to use the [ɐɪ] pronunciation.


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> Merq's comment strikes me as a non-sequitur.  Bernd says he'd be _surprised_ if many speakers regarded [ɐɪ] as _non_-regional.  I.e., he'd be surprised if many regarded it as standard.  So he believes that most regard it non-standard.  With which I agree.  I _don't_ believe that the stigma has disappeared.  In my experience, the more highly educated a British speaker is, the less likely they are to use the [ɐɪ] pronunciation.


I think what he meant is that speaking with a local accent isn't stigmatized as _uneducated _any more. And I agree with that. The general attitude towards accents has certainly changed during the last 30 years as has the attitude towards traditional class barriers in general.


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> I think what he meant is that speaking with a local accent isn't stigmatized as _uneducated _any more. And I agree with that. The general attitude towards accents has certainly changed during the last 30 years as has the attitude towards traditional class barriers in general.


----------



## Dan2

Anyone growing up in London is exposed to the [ɐɪ] pronunciation.  The fact that those who strive to speak "correctly" avoid that pronunciation implies that it's still "stigmatized" to a significant degree.  Post 20's "At the least the stigma attached to it has disappeared" is what I was disagreeing with.


----------



## merquiades

Dan2 said:


> Anyone growing up in London is exposed to the [ɐɪ] pronunciation.  The fact that those who strive to speak "correctly" avoid that pronunciation implies that it's still "stigmatized" to a significant degree.  Post 20's "At the least the stigma attached to it has disappeared" is what I was disagreeing with.



I know an English language professor at university who speaks with [ɐɪ] pronunciation.  I was taken aback when he introduced me to his parents because they have no trace of this trait at all.  I often meet erasmus students from various universities and business schools, many of whom speak with [ɐɪ].  Listening to British pop music the singers also use [ɐɪ].  For me as an observer these are clear signs that [ɐɪ] is progressing and the stigma attached to it is gone. 
No, I don't believe that teachers in school are telling people to speak with [ɐɪ] because it's correct.


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> Post 20's "At the least the stigma attached to it has disappeared" is what I was disagreeing with.


Yes, I understand that and I tried to address it.


Dan2 said:


> The fact that those who strive to speak "correctly"  avoid that pronunciation implies that it's still "stigmatized" to a  significant degree.


Fewer people than before accept RP as the measuring rod of "correctness". On the other hand, increased mobility and the electronic media have created the same same tendency to level dialectal differences that we observe in other countries as well. As a result, we don't have a strict dichotomy between standard and dialect speakers any more but a continuum of close-to-standard accents.


----------



## koniecswiata

Going back to the distinction between /e/ --the symbol I should use is the "backwards 3" to represent this sound and /e:/--this is the "long e", is that the long /e:/ does not exist in Standard English--certainly not in General American, and I believe not in RP.  It does exist in various dialect forms (Scottish, regional north central part of the US come to mind.  The /e:/ is really the dipthong /ei/.  I think this goes to the crux of  the matter of the original question where there was confusion having to do with two Italian vowels (the vowel in "letto" and the other being the long "e").  
The problem is that many dictionaries use represent the dipthong /ei/ as /e:/.  This leads to confusion and makes learners think that there is a "e" (backwards 3, as in "let") and another "long e" as in "day"--which is actually not a long e but rather a dipthong.


----------



## berndf

koniecswiata said:


> Going back to the distinction between /e/ --the symbol I should use is the "backwards 3" to represent this sound and /e:/--this is the "long e", is that the long /e:/ does not exist in Standard English--certainly not in General American, and I believe not in RP.  It does exist in various dialect forms (Scottish, regional north central part of the US come to mind.  The /e:/ is really the dipthong /ei/.  I think this goes to the crux of  the matter of the original question where there was confusion having to do with two Italian vowels (the vowel in "letto" and the other being the long "e").
> The problem is that many dictionaries use represent the dipthong /ei/ as /e:/.  This leads to confusion and makes learners think that there is a "e" (backwards 3, as in "let") and another "long e" as in "day"--which is actually not a long e but rather a dipthong.


It seems you didn't notice my rely to your previous comment:





berndf said:


> Of course /e/ is phonemically distinct from /eɪ/; that has never been the issue in this thread. The question was whether the starting point of the glide, i.e. the /e/ in /eɪ/, is recognizable different in quality from the monophthong /e/.


The issue we are discussing is why modern RP dictionaries do *not* transcribe _let _as /lɛt/ but as /let/. In traditional IPA for RP, the symbol "ɛ" appeared in _let_ /lɛt/ and the symbol "e" appears in day /deɪ/ *as part *of the diphthong /eɪ/. The use of the these symbols represented the approximate location of these vowels. In modern RP, the *starting point* of /eɪ/ and the position of /ɛ/ have become so close that dictionary authors found it more appropriate to use the same symbol in both cases. The vowel represented is neither a pure [e] nor a pure [ɛ] (though it is closer to [ɛ]) and they chose one of them, /e/, to represent both. So we find _let_ = /let/ and _day_ = /deɪ/. 

See the attached diagram.


----------



## koniecswiata

OK, completely clear now!


----------



## Marsario

> I would've used "letto", not "detto", to make this point.


Well, indeed the vowel in letto seems to be /ɛ/, while in detto should be /e/.
Are we anyway completely sure of this? How do you know it, Youngfun?
The point is that in Northern Italy (or at least in Milan), the vowel used for detto is /ɛ/. This may possibly be a regional mistake, but I have myself no way to be sure. Also, we have got two very similar words that is "detto" (that is either the past participle of dire or the noun for "saying") and "dettò" (he dictated). And in Milan we pronounce the words as /dɛt:ó/ and /det:ò/ (note that the o sound transcriptions are clearly wrong, but I don't know what symbols you’d use to make the difference).


----------



## Montesacro

Marsario said:


> Well, indeed the vowel in letto seems to be /ɛ/, while in detto should be /e/.
> Are we anyway completely sure of this?



Yes, of course we are.
Look up in any dictionary showing the standard pronunciation (for example the DOP).



Marsario said:


> The point is that in Northern Italy (or at least in Milan), the vowel used for detto is /ɛ/. This may possibly be a regional mistake, but I have myself no way to be sure.



Your generalisation is absolutely not true: many people in the North pronounce _detto_ with /e/. 
Speaking of Milan, where _detto_ is certainly pronounced /'dɛtto/, We observe a clear deviation from the standard pronunciation.


----------



## Marsario

> Your generalisation is absolutely not true: many people in the North pronounce _detto_ with /e/.
> Speaking of Milan, where _detto_ is certainly pronounced /'dɛtto/, We observe a clear deviation from the standard pronunciation.


Alright, thank you for the correction. I suppose that you pronounce both detto and dettò both with /e/ then, don’t you?


> Anyone growing up in London is exposed to the [ɐɪ] pronunciation.


You people are speaking about this [ɐɪ] pronunciation. However, I am not completely sure I understand what it is like. Have you got a video where the speakers clearly use that sound?


----------



## berndf

Marsario said:


> You people are speaking about this [ɐɪ] pronunciation. However, I am not completely sure I understand what it is like. Have you got a video where the speakers clearly use that sound?


Unfortunately, I can post video links here. You probably know the musical "My Fair Lady". Eliza speaks with a very strong London East End accent. Among other things professor Higgins teaches her to say [eɪ] rather than [ɐɪ] and she has to practice the sentence "The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain".


----------



## merquiades

Marsario said:


> You people are speaking about this [ɐɪ] pronunciation. However, I am not completely sure I understand what it is like. Have you got a video where the speakers clearly use that sound?



People who pronounce [ɐɪ] instead of [eɪ] rhyme "pain" with "pine".
I assume people who pronounce "pen" with [e] not [ɛ] pronounce "pen" close to "pane".


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> People who pronounce [ɐɪ] instead of [eɪ] rhyme "pain" with "pine".


Almost but not exactly. [ɐ] in [ɐɪ] is more like the vowel in "but". That is why in phonemic transcription this diphthong is often transcribed /ʌɪ/. Also, in London dialect the /aɪ/ in "pine" is realized [ɒɪ].


merquiades said:


> I assume people who pronounce "pen" with [e] not [ɛ] pronounce "pen" close to "pane".


Well, "pane" still has a diphthong and "pen" a (short) monophthong keeping "pen" and "pane" apart.

(PS: Northern dialect speakers will pronounce "pane" like /pe:n/, i.e. non-gliding, but they will pronounce the vowel in "pen" more /ɛ/-ish than RP speakers would. Compare this Norther speaker's pronunciation of _upscale_ [ʊpskeːl] to the same speakers pronunciation of nettle [nɛtl] in contrast to the pronunciation [netʰl] by an RP speaker on the same page.)


----------



## Dan2

merquiades said:


> People who pronounce [ɐɪ] instead of [eɪ] rhyme "pain" with "pine".


They may rhyme "pain" with YOUR "pine" (even that's probably not exactly true), but they certainly don't rhyme "pain" with their OWN "pine". 

Getting back to the issue of dictionaries' transcribing, for ex., "pen" as [pen], I'm a little surprised, Bernd, at your apparent acceptance of this convention.  As a native speaker of German, you know better than any of us what the IPA cardinal vowel [e] sounds like.  The only argument I can think of for not transcribing "pen" as [pɛn] is that it allows the avoidance of a non-standard typographical character.  To the extent that one feels it important to capture the closeness in initial vowel sound of "pen" and "pain", better "pain" as [pɛɪn] than "pen" as [pen], it seems to me.


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> Getting back to the issue of dictionaries' transcribing, for ex., "pen" as [pen], I'm a little surprised, Bernd, at your apparent acceptance of this convention.  As a native speaker of German, you know better than any of us what the IPA cardinal vowel [e] sounds like.  The only argument I can think of for not transcribing "pen" as [pɛn] is that it allows the avoidance of a non-standard typographical character.  To the extent that one feels it important to capture the closeness in initial vowel sound of "pen" and "pain", better "pain" as [pɛɪn] than "pen" as [pen], it seems to me.


I never said I did. I would have preferred /pɛn/ and /pɛɪn/ as well as the vast majority of cases are like this*. On the other hand, the phonemic range is large enough to include [e]. I could show you enough samples by RP speakers where "short e"=[e] would be appropriate (compare the two pronunciation of "nettle" I quoted; but I can show you more drastic examples). Since the vowel is neither a cardinal [e] nor a cardinal [ɛ], I can live with the transcription /e/.
____________________________
* I was profoundly shocked when I first saw _bed_=/bed/. I also never agreed with _day_=/deɪ/.


----------



## Youngfun

berndf said:


> Yes, the monophthongs [e] and [e:] don't exists in RP and GA any more. In RP (or what is now called RP) the sound moved from [e:] to [eɪ] in the second half of the 19th century. If you listen to how Rex Harrison as Prof. Higgins in My Fair Lady says "In Sp*ai*n the r*ai*n st*ay*s m*ai*nly in the pl*a*ne" the sound is clearly [eɪ]. But if you listen to modern RP speakers, it usually sounds closer to [ɛɪ]. I don't know, if this is due to AE influence or just the result of an ongoing progressive shift.
> 
> I've never heard /eɪ/ being pronounced [ei]. That sound totally unfamiliar to me.



Because I'm not a native speaker of English 
Although I distinguish _bitch_ /bɪtʃ/ and _beach_ /bi:tʃ/, I don't normally distinguish _short i_ and_ long i_ in diphtongs... as for me it's more natural to pronounce a [ei] rather than [eɪ].
So for me _day _is exactly homophone with Italian_ dei.

_To my ears, especially in American English, the single vowel is closer to [ɛ], while the diphtong is more similar to [ei]. 
So _let_ is more similar to [l*ɛ*t] while _late_ is more similar to [l*e*it].

But I'm not sure about RP, maybe the 2 vowel are closer.


----------



## merquiades

Youngfun said:


> Because I'm not a native speaker of English
> Although I distinguish _bitch_ /bɪtʃ/ and _beach_ /bi:tʃ/, I don't normally distinguish _short i_ and_ long i_ in diphtongs... as for me it's more natural to pronounce a [ei] rather than [eɪ].
> So for me _day _is exactly homophone with Italian_ dei.
> 
> _To my ears, especially in American English, the single vowel is closer to ɐ, while the diphtong is more similar to [ei].
> So _let_ is more similar to [l*ɛ*t] while _late_ is more similar to [l*e*it].
> 
> But I'm not sure about RP, maybe the 2 vowel are closer.



As far as I'm concerned, I agree with your statement.  Just "day" is shorter than "dei", the two vowels not being so clearly detached.

Edit:  On second thought it's better not to generalize.  I know some Southern and Western US dialects transform these two vowels in different ways.  Some people make "Pen" sounds a bit more like "Pin" and "Pain" less of a diphthong maybe /pe:In/. Pine /pa:In/   



			
				Berndt said:
			
		

> Almost but not exactly. [ɐ] in [ɐɪ] is more like the vowel in "but". That is why in phonemic transcription this diphthong is often transcribed /ʌɪ/. Also, in London dialect the /aɪ/ in "pine" is realized [ɒɪ].



I see what you mean.  Interesting.  I forgot about [ɒɪ].  So there is a one of those big vowels shifts going on in London.  [eɪ] >[ɐɪ] > [ɒɪ]

By the way, going back to Italian.  Is there any reason why "detto" is with /e/ and "letto" is /ɛ/?  Any rule to go by?


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> As far as I'm concerned, I agree with your statement.  Just "day" is shorter than "dei", the two vowels not being so clearly detached.


When I say "day" the point where the sides of the tong touch the teeth is about a cm further back than when I say "dei". Is this not so for you?


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> When I say "day" the point where the sides of the tong touch the teeth is about a cm further back than when I say "dei". Is this not so for you?



It's hard for me to answer that since I'm not entirely sure I pronounce "dei" right.  It's certainly further back than the way I would pronounce "des" in French.
But... I pretty much agree with the WR models for once:  day  and dei
Listen to US day and Italian dei.  This was what I was trying to explain to Youngfun.  It is shorter than "dei".  What they give for UK is different, the "e" component is longer and more open.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> It's hard for me to answer that since I'm not entirely sure I pronounce "dei" right.  It's certainly further back than the way I would pronounce "des" in French.
> But... I pretty much agree with the WR models for once:  day  and dei
> Listen to US day and Italian dei.  This was what I was trying to explain to Youngfun.  It is shorter than "dei".  What they give for UK is different, the "e" component is longer and more open.


We are not talking about the "i" component of the diphthong, aren't we? And I also agree with the WR transcriptions (/ɪ/ on "day" and "i" in "dei").


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> We are not talking about the "i" component of the diphthong, aren't we? And I also agree with the WR transcriptions (/ɪ/ on "day" and "i" in "dei").



Ok. Sorry. I thought we were talking about the "e".
As for the "i", I totally agree.  You described it well, it's further back.


----------



## Montesacro

merquiades said:


> By the way, going back to Italian.  Is there any reason why "detto" is with /e/ and "letto" is /ɛ/?  Any rule to go by?



You should follow etymology, Merquiades.
Generally speaking, a Latin _short e_ turns into an Italian _open_ _è _(lĕctus ---> lètto), whilst Latin _long e_ and _short i_ turn into an Italian _closed é (dĭctus--->détto; crēdo --->crédo)._


----------



## merquiades

Montesacro said:


> You should follow etymology, Merquiades.
> Generally speaking, a Latin _short e_ turns into an Italian _open_ _è _(lĕctus ---> lètto), whilst Latin _long e_ and _short i_ turn into an Italian _closed é (dĭctus--->détto; crēdo --->crédo)._



Grazie, Montesacro.  I noticed that little trick a while back.  Open è corresponds to places where Spanish has the diphthong (ie), but unfortunately it's not always cut and dry.  For example, "lètto" is "lecho" in Spanish not *liecho, and "détto" is "dicho" not *decho.  If I were fluent in Latin it'd be easier.  But a Classical Latin - Italian dictionary would be handy.  I wonder why Italians decided not to write diacritical marks.


----------



## berndf

To avoid duplication, a similar thread about French vs. English e-sounds has been closed: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=12178341

The topic of this thread is now extended to include French e-sounds.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Very interesting topic indeed!

When I initially started to research this a few minutes ago, I was just as confused as you were because _wet, bet, set_ and other rhyming word were written with [e] in this dictionary.  I checked on dictionary.com, and indeed there wet is written /wɛt/, as you suspected.  But then I checked in my hard copy if the _Harper Collins Robert French Unabridged Dictionary_, and they have the pronunciation also listed as /wet/.   I subsequently checked the front of the dictionary to see their  pronunciation guide, and there is where I think I discover the answer to  this conundrum.

Under the "Phonetic Transcription of French", they have [e] as corresponding to the sounds of bl*é* and jou*er*.  However, if you look under the "Phonetic Transcription of English", they have [e] as corresponding to the sound in s*e*t and l*e*ss.   Therefore, it is my assumption that there must be an English phonetic  system that exists alongside the International Phonetic Alphabet.  I  know that most learner's dictionaries tend to use the IPA, but most  American dictionaries, and still a few British ones, do what is called _pronunciation respelling_  because most speakers are unfamiliar with the IPA.  For example, in a  native English dictionary, the pronunciation for the word  "pronunciation" is given as [pr_uh_-nuhn-see-*ey*-sh_uh_n]  which is much easier for us to make sense of than the IPA's  /prəˌnʌnsiˈeɪʃən/, since we're already familiar with basic English  sounds and spellings.  This comes in handy because we often have to look  up the pronunciation of unfamiliar words whereas in other languages,  the spelling and phonetic rules don't allow for much variation and even  unknown word are easily pronounced correctly.  Here a good explanation, and here is an example of the American phonetic system.  The French one is more strictly based on the IPA.  Here is a table of the phonetic symbols used on WordReference.


----------



## merquiades

Hi Djweaverbeaver.  It's confusing.  I wish they had decided to use /ɛ/ for "bed", "set" in English, but since it appears that this open vowel is closing up in the UK, they probably won't change it.  Otherwise, you are right, the conclusion is quite simple. The [e] in English does not correspond to the [e] used in French or Italian, despite it being the same IPA symbol.  Cheers


----------



## berndf

Djweaverbeaver, it should be noted that IPA for RP and IPA for GA are different. In theory, IPA should be language-independent. But in reality it is not. Vowel space forms a continuum and the IPA vowel symbols form a reference grid in this space. There is no language where all vowels are exactly on this grid and the symbols are only approximations. The exact sound values associated with certain symbols vary from language to language and different subsets of the symbol repository is used. Dictionaries transcribing IPA for GA do use /ɛ/ for "bed", "set". Using /e/ is only used for transcribing RP. Most bilingual dictionaries in use in Europe are based in RP and not on GA.


----------



## Marsario

> I wonder why Italians decided not to write diacritical marks.


This  is quite an interesting question. I don’t know why that happened, but  if we were to start using them, very few  would be able to write in  Italian any more.

By the way, *<moved to this new thread>*.


----------



## Arath

In conservative RP (the accent that was popular 50 or 60 years ago) the vowel in the *dress*  lexical set was more closed than it is today. I don't know if it is  exactly cardinal /e/, but it definitely more closed than General  American /ɛ/ and Bulgarian /ɛ/. Here are a few examples:

"the s*e*cond": deleted YouTube link
"b*e*d time": deleted YouTube link
"broken h*ea*d": deleted YouTube link
"th*e*n": deleted YouTube link
"inv*e*ntors": deleted YouTube link

Someone whose native language distinguishes between /e/ and /ɛ/ can say which vowel it sounds closer to in the above examples.

On this web site: http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/so...wel-sounds-rp/ the difference between conservative RP and modern RP, regarding this sound, is shown.

In Australian English the vowel is exactly cardinal /e/:
"M*e*nzies": deleted YouTube link
"Am*e*rican": deleted YouTube link
"tog*e*ther": deleted YouTube link

In New Zealand English it's even higher approaching /ɪ/:

"When I was t*e*n": deleted YouTube link (sounds like "when I was tin").


----------



## Youngfun

I listened to the WR entry for day, I think US pronunciation is more or less [deɪ], but the UK one sounds like [dɛɪ] to me.
Then I wonder, why don't they use /ɛ/ /ɛɪ/ for modern RP? This would be more accurate than /e/ /eɪ/ !

It seems that American users here agree with me about /ɛ/ and /eɪ/ for GA. 



merquiades said:


> It is shorter than "dei".  What they give for UK is different, the "e" component is longer and more open.





berndf said:


> And I also agree with the WR transcriptions (/ɪ/ on "day" and "i" in "dei").


Thanks for correcting me. Now I've been repeating "day" and "dei", I also noticed that English "day" is shorter than Italian "dei".
I think in "day" there is a diphtong, so the 2 vowels are more "bond" together, it's much similar to the Chinese "得 dei" than to Italian "dei".
While Italian "dei" is almost (not sure if actually is) a 2 syllable word: /'de.i/, with the 2 vowels clearly separated.



merquiades said:


> Grazie, Montesacro.  I noticed that little trick a while back.  Open è corresponds to places where Spanish has the diphthong (ie), but unfortunately it's not always cut and dry.  For example, "lètto" is "lecho" in Spanish not *liecho, and "détto" is "dicho" not *decho.  If I were fluent in Latin it'd be easier.  But a Classical Latin - Italian dictionary would be handy.  I wonder why Italians decided not to write diacritical marks.


In Italian there diphtong "ie" has always open è, with few exceptions:
The following links could help:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ortoepia_italiana#La_.C3.A8_aperta
http://www.attori.com/dizione/Diz03.htm
http://www.attori.com/dizione/Diz04.htm

But there are so many rules and exceptions, I don't know if it's worth to learn them all unless you want to be an Italian actor...
Also, many Italians not from Central Italy pronounce them differently. Even in Rome our pronunciation is very close to the Standard but with very few differences.
In addition to what Montesacro said, this is what that Wikipedia entry says:

- open e: from Latin short _ĕ _and diphtong _ae_, also in the diphtong _eu _derived from the same diphtong in Latin _(neutrum>neutro)_.

- closed e: mostly from Latin long _ē_, short _i_, diphtong _oe_ and non-tonic _e__._


----------



## berndf

Youngfun said:


> Thanks for correcting me. Now I've been repeating "day" and "dei", I also noticed that English "day" is shorter than Italian "dei".
> I think in "day" there is a diphtong, so the 2 vowels are more "bond" together, it's much similar to the Chinese "得 dei" than to Italian "dei".
> While Italian "dei" is almost (not sure if actually is) a 2 syllable word: /'de.i/, with the 2 vowels clearly separated.


There is also a quality difference between /i/ and /ɪ/. /i/ is completely close and completely frontal while /ɪ/ is only near-close and almost central. Romance speakers tend to ignore this difference, e.g. French or Italian speakers often confuse English _leave _/liv/ and _live_ /lɪv/. But for speakers of Germanic languages like English this difference sticks out like a sore thumb, independently of length.


----------



## Outsider

berndf said:


> Romance speakers tend to ignore this difference, e.g. French or Italian speakers often confuse English _leave _/liv/ and _live_ /lɪv/.


I would say the difference is easily noticed in the monophthong (though many of us have trouble reproducing it consistently), but much more difficult to grasp in the diphthongs.

With regard to Italian "dei" versus English "day", I also hear a length difference in this case, with the vowels in the Italian word forming more of a hiatus than a diphthong. This is in fact the most striking difference between the two words, moreso than any qualitative difference between the "e" vowels.


----------



## berndf

Outsider said:


> With regard to Italian "dei" versus English "day", I also hear a length difference in this case, with the vowels in the Italian word forming more of a hiatus than a diphthong. This is in fact the most striking difference between the two words, moreso than any qualitative difference between the "e" vowels.


Of course. That's what Youngfun observed as well. I didn't mean to contradict him but to complement what he wrote because the difference between the two IPA symbols /i/ and /ɪ/ relates to the quality difference I explained.


----------



## merquiades

Youngfun said:


> In Italian there diphtong "ie" has always open è, with few exceptions:
> The following links could help:
> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ortoepia_italiana#La_.C3.A8_aperta
> http://www.attori.com/dizione/Diz03.htm
> http://www.attori.com/dizione/Diz04.htm
> 
> But there are so many rules and exceptions, I don't know if it's worth to learn them all unless you want to be an Italian actor...
> Also, many Italians not from Central Italy pronounce them differently. Even in Rome our pronunciation is very close to the Standard but with very few differences.
> In addition to what Montesacro said, this is what that Wikipedia entry says:
> 
> - open e: from Latin short _ĕ _and diphtong _ae_, also in the diphtong _eu _derived from the same diphtong in Latin _(neutrum>neutro)_.
> 
> - closed e: mostly from Latin long _ē_, short _i_, diphtong _oe_ and non-tonic _e__._



Wow.  Thanks for the info and those awesome links!  I've been looking for an explanation like that for a very long time.  It's like a present.



> It seems that American users here agree with me about /ɛ/ and /eɪ/ for GA.


That's right as far as I'm concerned.  I don't know GA.  There may be considerable variation depending on the place you go in America.  Your pronunciation seems fine to me.  I think the second element in the diphthong /eɪ/ is easy to comprehend if you remember that it is short and very relaxed, which could be the characteristic of all diphthongs in English? and certainly not Italian.  Actually by trying to tense and raise the /eɪ/ it naturally starts approaching French or Italian.


----------



## MEscher

Very interesting topic indeed. I'll try to sum it up.

In RP, the pronunciation of the “e” in "bed" and in “day” is the same (they are both open, like Italian “lètto).

In American English, the pronunciation of the “e” in "bed" and in “day” is different: the “e” in “day” is closed (like Italian “détto).

Is it correct?

Thanks a lot.


----------



## berndf

MEscher said:


> In RP, the pronunciation of the “e” in "bed" and in “day” is the same (they are both open, like Italian “lètto).


Both are a bit closer to the open than to the closed Italian "e" but they match neither exactly. Also, this is also not the case for all RP speakers, some maintain a higher "e" in "day" than in "bed".

You seem to be hooked on the idea that any "e" must be either "é" or "è". There is a whole spectrum of sounds in between. If I should compare the English "e"-sounds, RP or GA, to a Romance "e", the closest would the Spanish "e" which is just in the middle between "é" and "è".

But as very coarse rule of thumb your summary seems ok to me.


----------



## MEscher

berndf said:


> Both are a bit closer to the open than to the closed Italian "e" but they mach neither exactly. Also, this is also not the case for all RP speakers, some maintain a higher "e" in "day" than in "bed".
> 
> You seem to be hooked on the idea that any "e" must be either "é" or "è". There is a whole spectrum of sounds in between. If I should compare the English "e"-sounds, RP or GA, to a Romance "e", the closest would the Spanish "e" which is just in the middle between "é" and "è".
> 
> But as very coarse rule of thumb your summary seems ok to me.


I see. The pronounce of (for example) "rain" sounds to me very much similar to "rèin" in RP and "réin" in GA (where "è" is Italian open "e" and "é" is Italian closed "e"): is it right or is it only an wrong impression?

http://www.wordreference.com/enit/rain

Thanks a lot.


----------



## berndf

I agree   with your impression.

It should be noted though, that the long and the short "a" (as in _*a*ble _[long] and in _r*a*n_ [short]) in front of /n/ (and also /m/) is a bit special in American English: /eɪn/ is realized something like [ẽɪ̃n] and /æn/ as [ẽə̃n].


----------

