LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CONLANG Archives


CONLANG Archives

CONLANG Archives


CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONLANG Home

CONLANG Home

CONLANG  September 2002, Week 1

CONLANG September 2002, Week 1

Subject:

Re: The [??] attribute

From:

Nik Taylor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 7 Sep 2002 12:43:10 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (50 lines)

Roger Mills wrote:
> One would think that if they were truly syllabic, there could be
> alternations with non-syllabic, [C=] ~ [C].

Why?  That would represent the loss of a syllable.  In a pronunciation
like [kIt?n=], I can't see any way of interpreting that sound as
anything but syllabic.  The adjective would be [kIt?n=IS], three
syllables.

> Note too that in "bottom" the _t_ is flapped

There's also no syllabic nasal, at least in my dialect.  For me, only
/n/ can be syllabic, and only when following /t/ or /d/, "bottom" is
simply /bA*@m/

> rhythm ~ rhythmic and the other -thm words yes, but they're weird furrin
> words.

Again, in my dialect, those are /rID@m/ - /rIDmIk/, and I don't think
I've ever heard a syllabic /m/ in that word.

> We do get alternations with final /r, l/:  ['fajr=] ~ ['fajrIn] 'fire,
> firing', ['b&tr=] ~['b&trIN] 'batter, battering'

In your dialect, perhaps, but I say ['fajr=iN] and [b&*r=iN].

 (this last maybe more
> typical of British than US, but permissible here in fast speech) or ['bAtl=]
> ~ ['bAtlIN] 'bottle, bottling', ['sEtl=] ~ [sEtlr=] 'settle, settler'.

Again [bAtl=] ~ [bAtl=iN], [sEtl=] - [sEtl=r=], maybe [sEtlr=] in rapid
speech.

> Personally I've always preferred to indicate the schwa in these cases, if
> only becuase in a phonological derivation it's simpler to account for
> vowel-deletion than to account for a change in syllabicity.

Even if you don't pronounce the schwa?  Except in the most careful
speech, I have no schwa in any of those words.  I could see positing an
*underlying* schwa (but then why not do the same for [r=] and [l=]?),
but if there's no schwa on the surface, why show it in a phonetic
transcription?

--
"There's no such thing as 'cool'.  Everyone's just a big dork or nerd,
you just have to find people who are dorky the same way you are." -
overheard
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTaylor42

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager