Re: OT: Help reading Indic transliteration?
| From: | Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, January 15, 2004, 21:13 |
|---|
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.
-Mark
Replies