[Lingtyp] contrast between [ɪ] and [e]

[Cat Butz]

Dear all,

I can second anything said so far in this very interesting discussion, 
and add that my variety of Bavarian, which has an /i e ɛ a ɑ ɔ o u/ 
system with length contrasts in all eight qualities, does feature a true 
three-way contrast between [ɪ], [e], and [ɛ], as in

biddn [pɪtːn] 'plead'
beddn [petːn] 'beds'
bäddn [pɛtːn] 'pray'

However, from a phonological perspective, you could argue against this 
is that [ɪ] is phonologically /i/, though phonetically, it's clearly 
articulated with a tongue position very different from its long 
counterpart /iː/.

Conversely, from a phonetic perspective, you could argue against it that 
[ɪ] might actually be better transcribed as [ɨ], though I've never tried 
to find any phonetic studies on this.

Finally, from my own experience trying to figure out a Central Vanuatu 
language's 7V system as an L1 German and Bavarian speaker, I can say 
that for my money, you might as well use ⟨ɪ⟩ and ⟨e⟩ interchangeably 
unless you're forced to use both of them (as e.g. in the awesome example 
that Alex presented, thank you for that!), or if you want to indicate 
that [ɪ] is somehow related to /i/ via an ATR alternation or something 
along those lines, but in case, you're already in the realm of phonology 
again. Phonetically, these two proposed categories are way too 
wishy-washy to be fussy about them (and the same goes for ⟨ʊ o⟩.

My two cents.

Warmest,
---
Cat Butz (she)
HHU Düsseldorf
General Linguistics


Am 12/07/2025 12:52, schrieb Christian Lehmann via Lingtyp:
> Here is a trivial little problem for the phoneticians and
> phonologists:
> 
> IPA
> (https://www.internationalphoneticalphabet.org/ipa-sounds/ipa-chart-with-sounds/#ipachartstart)
> says that [ɪ] and [e] contrast in two features, height and
> frontness/backness.
> 
> Being a speaker of a language whose phonetic transcription has
> involved both of the above symbols for generations of phoneticians,
> and the symbols represent different phonemes, I have always taken this
> for granted. However, this pair of phones does not constitute clean
> minimal pairs in German because [e] is long, [ɪ] is short.
> 
> Describing now the Cabecar phonetics and phonology, there is a front
> mid-high (IPA says 'near-close' or 'close-mid') vowel phoneme which
> contrasts with both /i/ and /ɛ/, and there is no length. Chibchanist
> tradition transcribes it by [ɪ]. (There is an analogous configuration
> for /u/, /ʊ/ and /ɔ/.) I have two innocent questions here:
> 
> 	* Do [ɪ] and [e] actually sound differently? If I click them on the
> IPA webpage indicated, they sound identical to my ears. Same if I
> stretch the [ɪ] in my own pronunciation of _bitte_.
>  	* Even supposing that these are two different phones, should the
> (Cabecar) phoneme covering them not be taken to be /e/, rather than
> /ɪ/ (and likewise for /o/ rather than /ʊ/)?
> 
>  My (less innocent) suspicion is (but please correct me) that
> transcribing German words like _bitte_ with [ɪ] instead of the [e] of
> _bete_ is due to a phonological or even orthographic bias.
> 
> Curiously, if you ask Google "Is there a phonological contrast between
> [ɪ] and [e]?", its KI cheats you, adducing English examples spelled
> with <e> which represents an [ɛ].
> --
> Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
> Rudolfstr. 4
> 99092 Erfurt
> Deutschland
> 
>  		Tel.:
>  		+49/361/2113417
> 
>  		E-Post:
>  		christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
> 
>  		Web:
>  		https://www.christianlehmann.eu
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp