Even though they haven't been discovered, they are possible to make, so how should they sound? I want to enjoy Tom Scott's videos but he always sounds like he's talking down to me, like I'm the...
Even though they haven't been discovered, they are possible to make, so how should they sound?
I want to enjoy Tom Scott's videos but he always sounds like he's talking down to me, like I'm the stupid one in the room and it's tedious for him to have to talk down to me. It might well be true but I don't want to hear that in someone's voice.
It's actually possible to derive this information from the IPA chart used. Let's for instance take the very first empty white box in the video's chart, the one for labiodental plosives....
Exemplary
Even though they haven't been discovered, they are possible to make, so how should they sound?
It's actually possible to derive this information from the IPA chart used. Let's for instance take the very first empty white box in the video's chart, the one for labiodental plosives.
Labiodental tells us that the sound is articulated with your lower lip and your upper teeth, just like the sound /f/ is in the standard English word "fee".
But while the "f" sound is a fricative (you force air through a small opening between your lip and teeth), the white box sound is a plosive (also called a stop), like the sound /p/ as in standard English "pee". In other words, rather than allowing air to escape, you should keep the airflow completely blocked for a moment and then release it.
There's a bit more to it, but that's really the gist of it. So, now try to say "fee", but when you pronounce the /f/ at the beginning, instead of allowing airflow through, make it stop completely, as you would with /p/. It's a bit difficult, especially if you have large gaps between your teeth. You may have to curl your lower lip a little, perhaps. But you should be able to do it.
Now, although the video claims that this sound isn't used in any of the world's languages, that's strictly speaking not true. What is true is that the sound doesn't exist on what we call a "phonemic" level, which means that to the best of our understanding, no language uses the sound to distinguish it from another sound. But it's still used.
To illustrate this, let's think about Japanese for a moment and how Japanese people are known to have difficulties dintinguishing the English sounds /r/ ("roo") and /l/ ("loo"). That's because the Japanese language itself doesn't make a "phonemic" distinction between these two sounds. Standard Japanese actually still uses two related sounds, [ɾ] and [l], primarily preferring the former, but turning it into the latter in some contexts.
A quick note on notation: when phonologists use /slashes/, they mark phonemes (the "phonemic" level), which are what a speaker mentally considers individual sounds. When they use [brackets], they refer to the actual physical sounds, called phones (the "phonetic" level).
To further illustrate this, take English. In the word "poop", we have two p's, and for an English speaker they are considered the same sound, /p/. But in fact, they are two slightly different sounds: the first one is an aspirated /p/, or [pʰ], and the second is a non-aspirated /p/, or [p]. If you put your hand in front of your mouth when you say the word, you will detect a little bit of an extra burst of air with the first /p/, but not with the second one. Similarly, if you say "spoon", that extra burst of air is not there.
Just like a Japanese speaker doesn't distinguish between [ɾ] and [l], an English speaker thinks of [pʰ] and [p] as the same sound, /p/. This is because in standard English, a /p/ is always a [pʰ] when word-initial or when it starts a stressed syllable, while in every other context, it is [p]. The choice between them is automatic. In other words, in English, where [p] can exist, [pʰ] never can, and the other way around. They are what we call allophones, and as a result, there are no words in English where the meaning changes based on aspiration (that little h). Contrast this with "poo" and "boo" (a voiceless/voiced pair), showing us that for an English speaker /p/ and /b/ are two separate sounds.
Still, there are many languages where /p/ and /pʰ/ are phonemic, i.e. where "poo" and "pʰoo" (which I just totally made up) would be different words.
Now, remember how I said that the labiodental plosive that you tried to pronounce at the beginning doesn't exist in any language on a /phonemic/ level, but does still exist? Well, my understanding is that it exists at least on the [phonetic] level in some languages, where the sound is pronounced in specific contexts, as we saw with [pʰ] in English. And while it doesn't have its own IPA symbol, it can be written down with the help of diacritics: [p̪] (it might not show up correctly in your browser, though). You can check Wikipedia's entry for this voiceless labiodental stop for the symbol, or if you are interested in digging further.
Now, this is just one of the sounds in those empty boxes that the video claimed don't exist. That specific box that we looked at would also have [b̪], the voiced pair of the sound that we tried to make. You can try to make it exactly as you did at the beginning, but by also vibrating your vocal cords. It's the same difference as between /p/ ("poo") and /b/ ("boo") -- in the latter your vocal cords vibrate, in the former they don't. [b̪] is also used in some languages on a phonetic level.
I'm not sure if every single empty white box in the video's chart has a sound or sounds that actually exists on a phonetic level in some language, but strictly speaking the video's claim that these sounds don't exist at all is wrong. Although it's also perfectly correct, on a phonemic level.
Mr Scott explained that there are two groups of sounds not represented in the IPA chart: Sounds that humans are physically able to produce, but which are not known to be used in any language....
Even though they haven't been discovered, they are possible to make,
Mr Scott explained that there are two groups of sounds not represented in the IPA chart:
Sounds that humans are physically able to produce, but which are not known to be used in any language. These, he said, were represented by the white spaces in the chart. They're white to indicate that we're waiting for these sounds to turn up in real life, so we can add a symbol to represent them.
Sounds that humans are physically unable to produce. These, he said, were represented by the grey spaces in the chart. They're grey to indicate that these sounds will not turn up in real life, so we will never need to add a symbol to represent them.
He spent most of the video talking about these latter sounds: the theoretical ones indicated by grey spaces, but which humans can not actually make. These sounds are not possible for us to make, so he can't demonstrate how they should sound. They're just theoretical. Trilling your epiglottis is like touching your right elbow with your right hand: we can imagine it happening, but we can't do it.
I want to enjoy Tom Scott's videos but he always sounds like he's talking down to me,
I didn't get that feeling from watching this video. I got the sense of an earnest desire to explain something, and a sincere attempt to explain it as simply and clearly as possible. Given that we also use this "as simply and clearly as possible" approach to explain things to people like uninformed children and intellectually challenged adults, it might be that you're unconsciously assuming you're being treated as a child or a stupid person. But I think that's more in your mind than his.
Yes I understood the 2 groups. What I meant was I very much want to hear what those possible sounds are like - or at least an approximation. As for Tom Scott, it's definitely in my mind. I suspect...
Yes I understood the 2 groups. What I meant was I very much want to hear what those possible sounds are like - or at least an approximation.
As for Tom Scott, it's definitely in my mind.
I suspect I had a teacher or someone with similar mannerisms who did speak down to me. I probably should have kept that to myself but you never know where a conversation might go.
Even though they haven't been discovered, they are possible to make, so how should they sound?
I want to enjoy Tom Scott's videos but he always sounds like he's talking down to me, like I'm the stupid one in the room and it's tedious for him to have to talk down to me. It might well be true but I don't want to hear that in someone's voice.
It's actually possible to derive this information from the IPA chart used. Let's for instance take the very first empty white box in the video's chart, the one for labiodental plosives.
Labiodental tells us that the sound is articulated with your lower lip and your upper teeth, just like the sound /f/ is in the standard English word "fee".
But while the "f" sound is a fricative (you force air through a small opening between your lip and teeth), the white box sound is a plosive (also called a stop), like the sound /p/ as in standard English "pee". In other words, rather than allowing air to escape, you should keep the airflow completely blocked for a moment and then release it.
There's a bit more to it, but that's really the gist of it. So, now try to say "fee", but when you pronounce the /f/ at the beginning, instead of allowing airflow through, make it stop completely, as you would with /p/. It's a bit difficult, especially if you have large gaps between your teeth. You may have to curl your lower lip a little, perhaps. But you should be able to do it.
Now, although the video claims that this sound isn't used in any of the world's languages, that's strictly speaking not true. What is true is that the sound doesn't exist on what we call a "phonemic" level, which means that to the best of our understanding, no language uses the sound to distinguish it from another sound. But it's still used.
To illustrate this, let's think about Japanese for a moment and how Japanese people are known to have difficulties dintinguishing the English sounds /r/ ("roo") and /l/ ("loo"). That's because the Japanese language itself doesn't make a "phonemic" distinction between these two sounds. Standard Japanese actually still uses two related sounds, [ɾ] and [l], primarily preferring the former, but turning it into the latter in some contexts.
A quick note on notation: when phonologists use /slashes/, they mark phonemes (the "phonemic" level), which are what a speaker mentally considers individual sounds. When they use [brackets], they refer to the actual physical sounds, called phones (the "phonetic" level).
To further illustrate this, take English. In the word "poop", we have two p's, and for an English speaker they are considered the same sound, /p/. But in fact, they are two slightly different sounds: the first one is an aspirated /p/, or [pʰ], and the second is a non-aspirated /p/, or [p]. If you put your hand in front of your mouth when you say the word, you will detect a little bit of an extra burst of air with the first /p/, but not with the second one. Similarly, if you say "spoon", that extra burst of air is not there.
Just like a Japanese speaker doesn't distinguish between [ɾ] and [l], an English speaker thinks of [pʰ] and [p] as the same sound, /p/. This is because in standard English, a /p/ is always a [pʰ] when word-initial or when it starts a stressed syllable, while in every other context, it is [p]. The choice between them is automatic. In other words, in English, where [p] can exist, [pʰ] never can, and the other way around. They are what we call allophones, and as a result, there are no words in English where the meaning changes based on aspiration (that little h). Contrast this with "poo" and "boo" (a voiceless/voiced pair), showing us that for an English speaker /p/ and /b/ are two separate sounds.
Still, there are many languages where /p/ and /pʰ/ are phonemic, i.e. where "poo" and "pʰoo" (which I just totally made up) would be different words.
Now, remember how I said that the labiodental plosive that you tried to pronounce at the beginning doesn't exist in any language on a /phonemic/ level, but does still exist? Well, my understanding is that it exists at least on the [phonetic] level in some languages, where the sound is pronounced in specific contexts, as we saw with [pʰ] in English. And while it doesn't have its own IPA symbol, it can be written down with the help of diacritics: [p̪] (it might not show up correctly in your browser, though). You can check Wikipedia's entry for this voiceless labiodental stop for the symbol, or if you are interested in digging further.
Now, this is just one of the sounds in those empty boxes that the video claimed don't exist. That specific box that we looked at would also have [b̪], the voiced pair of the sound that we tried to make. You can try to make it exactly as you did at the beginning, but by also vibrating your vocal cords. It's the same difference as between /p/ ("poo") and /b/ ("boo") -- in the latter your vocal cords vibrate, in the former they don't. [b̪] is also used in some languages on a phonetic level.
I'm not sure if every single empty white box in the video's chart has a sound or sounds that actually exists on a phonetic level in some language, but strictly speaking the video's claim that these sounds don't exist at all is wrong. Although it's also perfectly correct, on a phonemic level.
Mr Scott explained that there are two groups of sounds not represented in the IPA chart:
Sounds that humans are physically able to produce, but which are not known to be used in any language. These, he said, were represented by the white spaces in the chart. They're white to indicate that we're waiting for these sounds to turn up in real life, so we can add a symbol to represent them.
Sounds that humans are physically unable to produce. These, he said, were represented by the grey spaces in the chart. They're grey to indicate that these sounds will not turn up in real life, so we will never need to add a symbol to represent them.
He spent most of the video talking about these latter sounds: the theoretical ones indicated by grey spaces, but which humans can not actually make. These sounds are not possible for us to make, so he can't demonstrate how they should sound. They're just theoretical. Trilling your epiglottis is like touching your right elbow with your right hand: we can imagine it happening, but we can't do it.
I didn't get that feeling from watching this video. I got the sense of an earnest desire to explain something, and a sincere attempt to explain it as simply and clearly as possible. Given that we also use this "as simply and clearly as possible" approach to explain things to people like uninformed children and intellectually challenged adults, it might be that you're unconsciously assuming you're being treated as a child or a stupid person. But I think that's more in your mind than his.
Yes I understood the 2 groups. What I meant was I very much want to hear what those possible sounds are like - or at least an approximation.
As for Tom Scott, it's definitely in my mind.
I suspect I had a teacher or someone with similar mannerisms who did speak down to me. I probably should have kept that to myself but you never know where a conversation might go.