Re: Phoneme winnowing continues

En réponse à Mark J. Reed :


>Well, yes, but the difference is either:
>
>1. intonation - the second syllable comes out at a lower pitch than the first
>
>2. a glottal stop between them
>
>3. neither of the above becuase the vowel is a diphthong.  For instance,
>    in "go over", since English long "o" is a diphthong, simply resetting
>    to the start of the sound between the two "o"s makes an audible break -
>    almost a w, as in [gouwouv@`r].
But that's because you speak English. I'm speaking of [to:] vs. [to.o],
i.e. the second one is *two* syllables, with a syllable break in between,
but no glottal stop nor diphtongation, nor a difference in intonation (at
least not a necessary one). Just pronounce [to] (without diphtongation) and
follow immediately with a second [o] as a new syllable, without glottal
stop. Easy to do (at least to me), and different from everything you described.


>Okay, when I try to make that distinction I get [mAk:A] vs. [mAk::A]
>or [mAk@kA], with a very short [@] in the last example.
You need to train more then ;))) . Luckily, I've had some training when I
once tried to learn Italian. Its geminates taught me to pronounce geminates
without inserting a schwa in between.

>I can believe in a phonemic value for syllables, but phonetically
>it seems they have to be realized by something like the above
>mechanisms.
For you maybe, but they aren't the only ones. True phonetic syllables exist
too. And I'm not the only one who can pronounce that without a problem.

>   In a phonetic transcription I don't know what [.] means.
Syllable break, simply. It *does* phonetically exist you know? (it has to
do with the modulation of the energy used to pronounce a syllable. A
syllable break means the energy rises again to the onset level).

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.

Reply