Re: OT: Phonetics (IPA)

Andreas Johansson sikyal:

> Quoting Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>:
>
> > But if acoustically, it is recognised that we have an affricate rather than
> > simple cluster, we know for sure that we have a single phoneme here. The
> > problem is only when what we have is definitely a cluster, like [ps] in
> > Greek.
>
> Hm, if true, I'll have to revise my analysis of Tairezazh a bit.
>
> The words _dzatsh_ "first" and _zvatsh_ "directional" are supposed to be a
> perfect rhyme. But morphemically they divide as _dza-tsh_ and _zvat-sh_ (_-sh_
> being a phonologically determined allomorph of _-zh_), so I've been thinking
> of them as /d_zat_S/ and /zvatS/.
I don't see a problem here. A morpheme boundary does not imply a phonetic
difference: /dzatS/ and /zvat-S/ do not have to be pronounced differently.
Such a distinction is *possible*, viz. Polish, but not required.


Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/blog

Jesus asked them, "Who do you say that I am?"

And they answered, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground
of our being, the kerygma in which we find the ultimate meaning of our
interpersonal relationship."

And Jesus said, "What?"