zompist bboard

a congress of convoluted conworldery
It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:47 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Vowelless words
PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:00 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:44 pm
Posts: 832
Location: Marburg, Germany
Torco wrote:
isn't church pretty much wholly consonantal ? [tʃɹtʃ]

Fanu wrote:
Once again.
Kai_DaiGoji wrote:
I''m not talking about syllabic consonants (...) functioning as the nucleus

_________________
giˈtaɹ.plɛɪ̯ɚ‿n dɪs.ˈgaɪz • Der Sprachbaukasten
And! Ayeri Reference Grammar (upd. 28 Sep 2010)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:53 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 2:17 pm
Posts: 3438
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
I think the problem here is that when you start talking about words like [p] or [sxs], the concept of a syllable pretty much becomes useless. So the only way to answer the question without attacking its premises is to talk about syllabic consonants such as nasals and approximants, which (as has now been pointed out many times) are supposed to be excluded from the discussion.

Such words can certainly exist, but you may find that asking where the syllable nucleus is is like asking what colour the King of France's hair is.

_________________
Linguistics will become a science when linguists begin standing on one another's shoulders instead of on one another's toes.
—Stephen R. Anderson

Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:22 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:51 pm
Posts: 441
Yeah, I think the way I phrased it was inherently contradictory. Sorry :D For what it's worth, this has been extremely helpful to me: /fp'/ is indeed a possible preposition. So, that's cool.

_________________
TomHChappell wrote:
I don't know if that answers your question; is English a natlang?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:43 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 2:17 pm
Posts: 3438
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Kai_DaiGoji wrote:
Yeah, I think the way I phrased it was inherently contradictory. Sorry :D For what it's worth, this has been extremely helpful to me: /fp'/ is indeed a possible preposition. So, that's cool.

Something can, of course, be a syntactic word without being a phonological word. The general term for this is "clitic". So you could have an adposition which behaves like a word as far as the syntax is concerned, but attaches to the nearest (phonological) word as far as e.g. syllabification is concerned. This, I believe, is how Russian v, s etc. work.

_________________
Linguistics will become a science when linguists begin standing on one another's shoulders instead of on one another's toes.
—Stephen R. Anderson

Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:54 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:59 am
Posts: 3603
This leads to the question, how minimal can we make a syntactic word? Are there syntactic words which only surface as suprasegmental features? Certainly there are morphemes like that (even in natlangs, I gather), but I don't know of any clitics like that.

(Actually, Ndak Ta's copula has an essentially empty stem, but the stem by itself is not usually a valid word...)

_________________
書不盡言、言不盡意


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:57 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 16407
Location: One of the dark places of the world
Iirc, there are 'words' in some African languages that now only exist in the form of interactions with the downstep system.

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:22 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 2:17 pm
Posts: 3438
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Zhen Lin wrote:
This leads to the question, how minimal can we make a syntactic word? Are there syntactic words which only surface as suprasegmental features? Certainly there are morphemes like that (even in natlangs, I gather), but I don't know of any clitics like that.

(Actually, Ndak Ta's copula has an essentially empty stem, but the stem by itself is not usually a valid word...)

According to some analyses, Tongan has a definite article which manifests as stress shift from the penultimate syllable to the final syllable. This applies to the last word of the NP no matter how many words long the NP is (making it syntactically like a word). However, it seems this analysis isn't universally accepted – some linguists seem to think it's actually reduplication of the final vowel. If I get time I may do some more research into it.

Regardless of what the best analysis of Tongan is, stress shift as a suprasegmental clitic would be fun for a conlang.

Salmoneus wrote:
Iirc, there are 'words' in some African languages that now only exist in the form of interactions with the downstep system.

This is very interesting. Can you provide any more info?

_________________
Linguistics will become a science when linguists begin standing on one another's shoulders instead of on one another's toes.
—Stephen R. Anderson

Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:22 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 1413
Location: Moorhead, MN, USA
In informal spoken English, at least around here, it's very common to reduce the preposition "to" into [tʰ] before consonants and [tʰɰ] before vowels.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:39 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:23 pm
Posts: 423
Likewise, It's very common to reduce "it's/its", "that's", and sometimes "what's" to [ts], at least in my dialect.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:42 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:34 am
Posts: 838
Location: Amerika
Serbo-Croatian "s" ("with") is vowelless.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:25 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 542
It's funny how people obviously didn't read my whole post...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:28 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 542
TaylorS wrote:
In informal spoken English, at least around here, it's very common to reduce the preposition "to" into [tʰ] before consonants and [tʰɰ] before vowels.
Mine's like, the other way around but [tʰɔ]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vowelless words
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:24 pm 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:45 pm
Posts: 11765
Location: Santiago de Chile
Dampantingaya wrote:
Torco wrote:
isn't church pretty much wholly consonantal ? [tʃɹtʃ]

Fanu wrote:
Once again.
Kai_DaiGoji wrote:
I''m not talking about syllabic consonants (...) functioning as the nucleus


*pulls foot off mouth*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:49 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 1413
Location: Moorhead, MN, USA
na'oolkili wrote:
Likewise, It's very common to reduce "it's/its", "that's", and sometimes "what's" to [ts], at least in my dialect.


ts'all good! :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:11 pm 
Šriftom
Šriftom

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 7868
Location: Milwaukee, US
TaylorS wrote:
In informal spoken English, at least around here, it's very common to reduce the preposition "to" into [tʰ] before consonants and [tʰɰ] before vowels.

Heh - that is the opposite of the English that I am used to*, where to normally reduces to just** [ə(ː)] unless after another obstruent, where the typical fate of laminal*** /t/ in such an environment also applies, after /n/, where it typically additionally either geminates the /n/ or turns it to a nasal flap and also makes it laminal***, or initially, where it reduces to [t̻ʰə(ː)]. However, the reduction of the vowel in to is not obligatory for me, and even in informal speech I will often leave it unreduced as [u(ː)].

* I am not speaking of just my own dialect of English, even though this is what I specifically describe here, but rather I am saying that I am used to very similar phenomena in at least pretty much all the English dialects that I have had contact with between southeastern Wisconsin and upstate New York. Likewise, I have heard similar phenomena in other more General American-like varieties in the northern US, even though I am not as familiar with these varieties personally and thus cannot describe them in as much detail or with as much certainty.

** However, preceding morphemes in at least my own dialect that have vowel length variation depending on what follows them take short rather than long vowels, as if the /t/ were still there.

*** Vowel reduction for me does not mean that coronal lose their apicalness/laminalness as had been conditioned by the vowels in question; hence one can consider [ə(ː)] from historical /uː/ or /ʊ/ to still be distinguished from [ə(ː)] from other sources when such follows a coronal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:19 am 
Šriftom
Šriftom
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:40 pm
Posts: 9714
Location: Si'ahl
smnmnmuuc
"mute"

nuyamłamkis timantx tisyuttx ʔułtimnastx
"the father sang the song to his son"

musis tiʔimmllkītx taq̓lsxʷt̓aχ
"the boy felt that rope"


Dear god I love Nuxalk.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group