Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Roger Mills <romilly@...>
Date:Wednesday, July 2, 2003, 19:39
Andreas Johansson wrote:

> Quoting Roger Mills <romilly@...>: > > > Andreas Johansson wrote: > > > Also, it seems to me that Englishers tend to hear [dZ_0] as /dZ/
rather
> > > than /tS/. Nativers? > > > > > As in......? example, please. > > It seems that if I say [eIdZ_0], native English speakers tend to hear this > as "age", not "aitch". >
Thanks. Thought so. Or batch vs. badge etc. I think this has been discussed before-- in the view of many, English initial/final voiced sounds-- stops, frics and affricates-- are not fully voiced. It's a question of voicing onset time (in initial position) or voicing offset time (in final position). In addition, there are other cues, possibly more important than the amount of voicing-- differences in muscular tension, initial aspiration, and vowel lengthening before underlying final voiced sounds.
> Reminds me, is /tS/ supposed to be aspirated in English? >
For me, at least, slightly in initial position. Mark J. Reed's cri de coeur resonates with me, as well--
>All of this [voiced_0] vs [unvoiced] stuff is still very mysterious to
me. I have no clue how to pronounce [dZ_0] or [v_0] other than like [tS] and [f]. > Perhaps the X-Sampa diacritic "_0" with consonants should better be interpreted as "lenis", "lax", or "voiceless onset/offset" rather than "voiceless". It seems to me that to refer to a "voiceless [d]" or whatever is a contradiction in terms-- IPA [b d g etc.] are inherently voiced-- and a "voiceless [d]" would be describing some sort of [t] articulation. (Voiceless vowels are another matter; that would be a legitimate use of the "voiceless" diacritic.) YADEPT.

Reply

Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>