Re: CHAT: cultural interpretation [was Re: THEORY: language and the brain]

Quoting Roger Mills <romilly@...>:

> Peter Bleackley wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Bleackley" <Peter.Bleackley@...>
> To: <CONLANG@...>
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 10:27 AM
> Subject: Re: CHAT: cultural interpretation [was Re: THEORY: language and the
> brain]
>
>
> > At 10:06 03/07/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> > >On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:22:33PM +0100, Peter Bleackley wrote:
> > > >                 Underlying                      Realisation
> > > >                                         Normal speech   Whispered
> > > > Voiceless       /c/                     [c]             [c]
> > > > Voiced          /q/                     [q]             [c_h]
> > > >
> > >
> > >I think you've got that backwards.  The phonetic _h should go with the
> > >phoneme whose underlying form is voiceless.
> >
> > Interesting, and very counter-intuitive.
> >
>
> This is all quite strange.  Someone mentioned that one proper use of the
> "_0" marker is with voiced symbols that have no IPA symbol for a voiceless
> counterpart (can't think of many, except vowels and nasals [m] vs. [m_0],
> and perhaps the bilabial trill [B](?--whatever the SAMPA is), voiceless
> [B_0]).  Someone else mentioned that another proper use would be in
> describing whispering.  I agree in both cases.  But I do feel it's
> inaccurate to use it when a voiceless symbol exists-- [d_0] is not the same
> as [t] (unasp.) etc. and many languages do have the three-way contrast
> _voiced, voiceless unasp., voiceless asp._
What I think is really need is markers for fortis and/or lenis. Till I'm aware
of such, I'm going to persist in using [d_0] for a voiceless lensi unaspirated
stop, and when not feeling too nitpickish also for a dito dental stop.

                                                            Andreas