Print

Print


--- On Mon, 7/13/09, Kelvin Jackson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Kelvin Jackson <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Typological sins (WAS: Re: [CONLANG] phonology, critique pls)
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Monday, July 13, 2009, 4:10 PM
> >> No need to feel guilty or
> blue, change the analysis: All
> >> languages have /T/ and /D/, it's just that some
> languages
> >> have no [T] or [D]. For instance, Japanese might
> have /T/
> >> -> [t] and [ts] but never [T]. It's crazy
> phonology, but
> >> people have done crazier things. :)
> >> 
> >> -- Paul
> >> 
> > I'm in the dark... /T/ vs [T]?
> > 
> /T/ is the phoneme, whereas [T] is the actual sound. For
> instance, the phoneme /T/ may be realized as some other
> sound than [T], and the sound [T] may represent some other
> underlying phoneme than /T/ in a certain language.

OK, now I am totally confused.... [sigh] I thought the CXL (et al) symbols represented the sounds. If not, then why bother using CXL?

Lee