Re: USAGE: (Mis)Naming a Language

i think the real issue is one of both syllables being in the same metrical
foot: [l&?n=] for "latin" and something like [l&4n=] for "ladin" - the
latter is definitely voiced.

hm.  saying "latter" ([l&d@r\]) makes me think it might not be feet after
all, but the syllabic n, as charlie points out.  but i'm *definitely* not
using any [}] in what i'm saying.

curious.

-kit

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, caeruleancentaur wrote:

> In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Carsten Becker <naranoieati@B...> wrote:
> >>Heh, you Americans would pronounce "Ladin" and "Latin" the same when
> >>speaking uncarefully ["l&:4In], wouldn't you?
> Not me!  I'm a bit of a neophyte with x-sampa, but let's see what I
> can come up with.
>
> ladin is /l{d}n=/
>
> latin is /l{t}n=/
>
> I'm trying to show that the d and t are begun with the tongue against
> the alveolus, but there is no oral release of air.  Instead the
> center of the tongue seems to rise to the palate to form the n and
> the air is released through the nose.  /I/ is never heard.
>
> The minimal pairs maddens/matins, sadden/satin are produced in the
> same way, mutatis mutandis.
>
> I believe that Carsten is basing his supposition on the American
> practice of voicing intervocal voiceless consonants, e.g., latter
> =ladder.  But in this case there is no intervocal voicing since there
> are not two vowels involved.  There is the /{/, but there is no /I/.
>
> Charlie

Reply