Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: YAEPT: apparently bizarre 'A's (was Re: YEAPT: f/T (was Re: Other Vulgar Lat

From:Tristan Alexander McLeay <conlang@...>
Date:Thursday, February 23, 2006, 11:57
As to what began this subthread, I have absolutely no idea what the
realisation of coda /r/ was at any of the times T0, T1, T2, T3 or T4.
I don't even know what times they were, except that if my hypothesis
is correct they happen in that order. I saw no reason to over-specify
the consonant, particularly because it's phonetic character wasn't
relevant. /r/ is perfectly suitable for any rhotic in a language with
only one and it's easier to read than /4/ or /r\/.

(The pronunciations I gave as T4 weren't even my own; I wouldn't
hypothesise an underlying /r/ IMD, and there's definitely no phonetic
realisation of it in the ones with word-final consonants! I make them
/ha:T h3:d 3:T sta: v3:s/ [ha_":T h8_+:d 8_+:T sta: v8_+:s], assuming
[_+] means "fronted".)

On 23/02/06, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
> On 2/22/06, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote: > > BTW you seem to have interchanged [ ] and / / throughout. The square > > brackets [] denote _phonetic_ values; these are not language dependent. > > the slashes denote phonemes of a given language. > > As your explanation and mine have opposite specificities, perhaps I > should clarify further. > > A symbol between [..] refers to a specific sound, exactly as > pronounced; you can be confident that wherever you see the same symbol > between [...], exactly the same sound is meant, regardless of the > language being discussed.
Actually, you can't be. Particularly with vowels, which vary over a continuum, it would be completely impractical to have exactly the same sound meant. The major difference is that when you're using slashes, you're making a theoretical statement ("every different symbol refers to a different phoneme, and every different phoneme has a different symbol") whereas when you're using square brackets, you're making an observation ("every different symbol refers to a different sound"). It comes close to the same thing, but in many languages with only one low vowel, [a] can be used to denote the low central vowel, rather than using [ä] all the time. Also, there's issues of focus. (YAEPD follows, IMD implied.) When discussing the loss of aspiration when a voiceless stop follows /s/, there's no need to point out that the vowel of "steep" is substantially shorter than the vowel of "team" (or indeed the diphthongal character of the vowel); we can say they're [sti:p] and [t_hi:m] respectively. But if the issue happens to be the clipping, we can say they're [sti:\p] and [ti:m]. ...
> different dialects. But similar considerations apply. Theoretically, > there is some underlying Original English and our various dialects are > just surface realizations of this Ur-language. :) So I might still > write these words phonemically as /spOt/ and /pOt/, even though in my > particular 'lect they are [spat] and [p_hat].
Well, there's no *historical* Original English. Any such "Ur-language" will have a lot of distinctions that were *never* made in the history of certain dialects, or come short of its goal. e.g. in northern-English dialects & their ancestors, there has never been a difference between "can't" and "cant" or "ran" and "Rann" or "put" and "putt", but I distinguish them all (the vowels are /a: &: & &: U a/, resp.). -- Tristan.


Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>