Re: OT: Help reading Indic transliteration?

En réponse à Mark J. Reed :


>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,
I think you're confusing [r] and [4] (trills and flaps). Trills just cannot 
be near-instantaneous, because they have to be trilled at least twice 
(otherwise you just have a flap). So in the end they are just as long, 
whether they are syllabic or not. With flaps [4], your point may be better. 
I find it myself hard to have a syllabic flap as short as a non-syllabic 
one. But not impossible. Just a matter of trying :) .

>  far
>shorter than even the shortest actual syllables in my speach.
I really think you're confusing trills and flaps here.

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang. 

Reply