Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Betreft: Re: Jaars IPA Helper

From:Rob Nierse <rnierse@...>
Date:Thursday, January 13, 2000, 8:20
>>> "Daniel A. Wier" <dawier@...> 01/13 8:03 >>>
<snip>>>>>>>>> It works perfectly fine, because in languages where b/p mean plain/unaspirated, it relates perfectly to closely related languages where b/p means voiced/voiceless. Case in point: Scots Gaelic vs. Irish Gaelic. Also, Egyptian, the one-language branch of Afro-Asiatic, has aspirated and non-aspirated where the Semitic languages have voiceless and voiced. Other languages with all unvoiced stops: Estonian (actually THREE classes of stops, all unvoiced) (also many Uralic languages) Georgian (initial and final stops/affricates only normally you have voiceless-ejective/voiceless-aspirated/voiced) Mandarin Punjabi (only because voiced/voiceless became low tone/high tone) Tibetan (but modern Tib. might not be so) Burmese (voiced allophones, maybe) Thai (again, possibly voiced allophones) Quechua (this time, ejective/aspirated/plain, all unvoiced) Any more I forgot? Any wrong? <<<<<<<<<<<< The way I speak Dutch I use unvoiced /z/ and /v/. In standard Dutch theu should be voiced, but they tend to get unvoiced in the west of Holland (Amsterdam, Den Haag). When people (incl. me) correct this and try to voice the 'voiceless' /v/ and /z/, they pronounce it unvoiced. So I have phonetically voiced ([b]), unvoiced ([v_O] and voiceless sounds ([f]). Phonologically it is just voiced vs. voiceless Christophe, you wrote in your last sketch that your conlang has the distinction voiced/unvoiced. Do you mean voiced/voiceless? Rob