Re: Linguistic Terminology

Nik Taylor wrote:

> Kristian Jensen wrote:
> > I suspect that this is merely a transcription practice. Anything
> > aspirated would be transcribed as /p/t/k/ and anything unaspirated
> > as /b/d/g/. Voicing has little to do with the transcription.
The problem as I see it is not so much that voicing has little to do with=
transcription,
but that by the fact that we have two sets of dichotomiesbetween voiced a=
nd unvoiced, and
aspirated and unaspirated, it givesa false impression that there is some =
actual
fundamental difference
between the two sets of dichotomies... like you said, it's more a matter
of where along the continuum the sounds lies, what the voice-onset timing
is relative to others.

I think Nik is right in that most English stops that  lack aspiration
do have some small amount of voicing, just not as much as, say,
Russian does.  It's just a matter of the continuum, that's all.

> /b/ /d/ and /g/ are always voiced.  An unaspirated stop is /p/,
> aspirated is /p_h/.  [b], [p], and [p_h] all exist in English.  [p] and
> [p_h] are allophones of /p/, while [b] is its own phoneme, /b/.
BUT when I've demonstrated what deaspirated voiceless stops soundlike to =
my friends, they
almost without exception describe it as sounding
like the voiced equivalent.

> > Actually, IMHO, the term 'voiced' and 'unvoiced' is pretty
> > misleading because it gives the impression that its a binary feature
> > when in fact there is a pretty broad spectrum from creaky voiced to
> > modal voice to unvoice (there are several other kinds of voicing in
> > between these three).
>
> There's also breathy voice.  However, I don't think that "voiced" and
> "unvoiced" are in any way misleading - they are the main phonations
> throughout the world, and many languages contain only them (and I know
> of none that contains only one of those), so it makes sense, in my mind=
,
> to distinguish primarily between them.  Besides, they are voiced and
> unvoiced, if you wish, they could be called "simple voiced" and "simple
> voiceless" to distinguish between them and creaky or breathy voices.
Well, I agree and I disagree.   You're right in that whether or not a
language has a series of voiced stops is a very regular way to differenti=
ate
phonemes in many languages, but I think this discussion began in part
as a discussion of English phonology, and in English phonology, the
stops are not *as* voiced as in other languages.  In English, it is a
legitimate question the extent to which they are voiced.

> > I suspect that in John's dialect, initial /d/
> > is in fact something called 'slack voice' (something between modal
> > voice and voiceless).
>
> I have never encountered this term before, what does it mean, and how
> can it be *between* voice and voiceless?  The vocal cords either vibrat=
e
> (as in voiced and creaky voice) or don't (as in voiceless or breathy
> voice).
You're right -- they either do or don't vibrate.  But how voiced
they are also depends on how taut the vocal chords are when
they vibrate, and this is a matter of continuum, not of either-or.


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Tom Wier <twier@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

"S=F4=F0 is gecy=FEed / =FE=E6t mihtig God manna
cynes / w=EAold w=EEde-ferh=F0."
 _Beowulf_, ll. 700-702
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D