Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Linguistic Terminology

From:Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
Date:Monday, January 4, 1999, 21:18
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