Print

Print


Quoting "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[log in to unmask]>:

> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 01:03:46 +0100, Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >Quoting Rene Uittenbogaard <[log in to unmask]>:
> >
> >> Tristan Mc Leay wrote:
> >>
> >> > In at least some it actually is [dZ)].
> >>
> >> Is there a difference between [dZ] and [dZ)] ? If so, what is it?
> >
> >Well, sort-of.
> >
> >[dZ)] is an affricate, [dZ] is ambiguous between a cluster and an
> >affricate. The difference is quite minimal, except in cases there a
> >syllable boundary would fall within the cluster - [ad.Za] vs [a.dZa] might
> >very well be contrastive somewhere.
>
> I imagine you're describing the distinction between a [d] with its own
> release followed by a [Z] and the affricate, where the release of the stop
> isn't previous to the fricative, but simultaneous with it.
>
> Syllable boundaries aren't sounds, but there may be languages where they
> have certain effects on sounds (which doesn't make them sounds).

I suppose I should have written [ad.Za] and [a.dZ)a].

But I'm slightly worried to (re-)discover that the X-SAMPA document claims that
Polish _czy_ and _trzy_ are a minimal pair for [tS1] and [t-S1]! CXS could
write [tS)1] and [t-S1] to be entirely unambiguous. How anyone can tell those
apart in connected speech rather boggles my mind, however ...

                                         Andreas