Re: OT: Help reading Indic transliteration?

Staving Mark J. Reed:
>On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 09:40:08PM +0100, Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> > En réponse à Joe :
> >
> >
> > >I'm not sure if that's true.  I think the difference is subtler than that.
> >
> > Indeed. A short [a] is enough to make a syllable. So why not [r=]?
>
>I think you misunderstand me.  I'm not saying that [r=] can't be a
>syllable without becoming [r=:].  I'm just saying that a [r=]
>is phonetically longer than a non-syllabic [r], because non-syllabic [r]'s -
>at least the way I say 'em - are near-instantaneous in duration, far
>shorter than even the shortest actual syllables in my speach.

In case it makes a useful contribution to this discussion, in Khangaþyagon
[r] is the realisation of geminated [4].

Pete