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

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._

(Actually I don't know how IPA handles whispering (there's probably a way),
since it would affect the entire string, and it could be laborious to have
to write the little "voiceless" diacritic under every voiced sound.  Perhaps
one would use opening/closing tags à la: <whisper>.......</whisper>)

Reply