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)
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?