On 3/21/06, Tristan Alexander McLeay <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Sorry, you've misunderstood me. A vocalised consonant isn't the same
> as a syllabic consonant. A syllabic consonant is when a consonant acts
> as a syllabic nucleus such, like [l=]. A vocalised consonant is when a
> consonant is out-right replaced by an (often non-syllabic) vowel.

OK, got it.  Except . . . "non-syllabic vowel"?  Isn't that something
like "bright darkness"??

> > [M] is the Japanese /u/...
> Japanese /u/ has a different sort of liprounding to normal [u], but it

Yes?  Do go on. :)

> Yuppers! Many Australian Aboriginal languages distinguish between all
> three of dental, alveolar and postalveolar POAs (as stops), and most
> of them also don't have any fricatives---at all. The three series are
> redundantly distinguished the part of the tongue that touches the roof
> tho: the dental are laminal, the alveolar are apical and the
> postalveolar are retroflex.

Friggin' Aborigines, screwing up a system that's perfectly adequate
for everyone else.  Poof!  Diacriticitis. :)

> > [G] is one place I prefer the CXS to real IPA.  The IPA versions of
> > [7] and [G] are far too similar for my taste, especially in
> > handwritten notes.
> I agree, though in handwritten notes I find 6 and @ a *lot* harder to
> distinguish.

@ or @\?  6 and @ are backwards and upside down relative to each
other, while @\ looks summat like a 6 flipped horizontally...

Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>