Palatal Stops
- Hallow XIII
- Avisaru
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:40 pm
- Location: Under Heaven
Palatal Stops
I was noticing this when I was looking over Irish phonology, but it really applies to pretty much everyone: something is wrong in the way the palatal stops are parsed. [c ɟ] are really two different sounds each, once articulated with the tongue touching the alveolar ridge and once without. Irish has both varieties, with the phonemic analysis being /tʲ dʲ/ and/c ɟ/respectively, but in phonetic notation both of these sounds seem to be represented by [c ɟ], at least in other languages (case example: Albanian /c ɟ/ is pronounced exactly like Irish /tʲ dʲ/). I don't know if there is some sort of diacritic I've missed (if yes, it's buried very, very, deep), but it seems to me there's a serious deficiency here, because in a phonology, unless the language contrasts these two and one has to be parsed differently, you don't know which is meant.
This must be rectified.
This must be rectified.
陳第 wrote:蓋時有古今,地有南北;字有更革,音有轉移,亦勢所必至。
Read all about my excellent conlangsR.Rusanov wrote:seks istiyorum
sex want-PRS-1sg
Basic Conlanging Advice
Re: Palatal Stops
I always thought that they were the same thing.
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: Palatal Stops
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
Re: Palatal Stops
Yes, they should.Nortaneous wrote:They really should add ȶ ȡ ȵ ȴ to IPA.
Re: Palatal Stops
In a phonology it doesn't matter which one is meant, because they're not contrastive. Looking at a phonological description of German, I can't tell if the /S/-sound is more like the English postalveolar or the Mandarin retroflex, or like neither. And that's fine, since it shouldn't matter (at least, it shouldn't if we're adhering to a modular structuralist-generativist substance-free phonology).Hallow XIII wrote:because in a phonology, unless the language contrasts these two and one has to be parsed differently, you don't know which is meant.
For a decent phonetic description though, yes, it's absolutely vital, although palatal stops are by no means outliers. Many aspects of the segmental description of a language are not phonetically clear - is there lip protrusion on the rounded vowels, or just lip rounding? What is the tongue posture for the sibilants? How long are the trills? Is the allophonic nasalization gradient or categorical? And what exactly is meant by "stress on the penultimate syllable"?
Languages are complicated
The man of science is perceiving and endowed with vision whereas he who is ignorant and neglectful of this development is blind. The investigating mind is attentive, alive; the mind callous and indifferent is deaf and dead. - 'Abdu'l-Bahá
- Hallow XIII
- Avisaru
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:40 pm
- Location: Under Heaven
Re: Palatal Stops
The point is, assuming I don't have the time to read a detailed phonological description, I'd still like to be able to look at an IPA transcription of something and be able to pronounce it in such a manner that native speakers would not like at me like I was some sort of mentally retarded Martian. I'm sure there are some poor bastards out there who, never having been to Albania, pronounce kuq [kuc] instead of [kuȶ] or, having read the Wikipedia article on Irish, waltz around saying ['ge:lʲȡə] until someone informs them of their mistakes.Rory wrote:highly intellectual post
陳第 wrote:蓋時有古今,地有南北;字有更革,音有轉移,亦勢所必至。
Read all about my excellent conlangsR.Rusanov wrote:seks istiyorum
sex want-PRS-1sg
Basic Conlanging Advice
Re: Palatal Stops
I would guess the average language learner would not be able to make that distinction even if they tried. People regularly fail to replace similar sounds like this. For example, Japanese speakers regularly fail to replace Japanese [ɕ] with English [ʃ] when Speaking English, but I wouldn't call them poor bastards because of it, and it doesn't hinder communication.Hallow XIII wrote:The point is, assuming I don't have the time to read a detailed phonological description, I'd still like to be able to look at an IPA transcription of something and be able to pronounce it in such a manner that native speakers would not like at me like I was some sort of mentally retarded Martian. I'm sure there are some poor bastards out there who, never having been to Albania, pronounce kuq [kuc] instead of [kuȶ] or, having read the Wikipedia article on Irish, waltz around saying ['ge:lʲȡə] until someone informs them of their mistakes.Rory wrote:highly intellectual post
I also doubt there is a significant number of people learning Albanian who have never been to Albania yet are able to distinguish [c] and [ȶ].
Re: Palatal Stops
This is why we learn languages from teachers and not from Wikipedia. It's simply impossible to get a truly native pronunciation from an IPA transcription; that's not even what the IPA was designed for in the first place.Hallow XIII wrote:The point is, assuming I don't have the time to read a detailed phonological description, I'd still like to be able to look at an IPA transcription of something and be able to pronounce it in such a manner that native speakers would not like at me like I was some sort of mentally retarded Martian. I'm sure there are some poor bastards out there who, never having been to Albania, pronounce kuq [kuc] instead of [kuȶ] or, having read the Wikipedia article on Irish, waltz around saying ['ge:lʲȡə] until someone informs them of their mistakes.Rory wrote:highly intellectual post
The man of science is perceiving and endowed with vision whereas he who is ignorant and neglectful of this development is blind. The investigating mind is attentive, alive; the mind callous and indifferent is deaf and dead. - 'Abdu'l-Bahá
Re: Palatal Stops
Different notations do things differently. The mark for palatal articulation in UPA is the acute accent. This means that you can very easily distinguish between alveo-palatals and prevelars by sticking the palatal mark over alveolar and velar symbols. The down side is that in principle the palatal mark doesn't make a distinction between palatalised and purely palatal consonants. So without further specification the UPA ń can mean either /ɲ/ or /nʲ/ in IPA. If you want or have to contrast the two, you have to resort to special supplementary marks. Some old works that aim for exact phonetic transcription can be a pain to read because it's hard to dig the basic letter forms beneath all the diacritical marks.
Re: Palatal Stops
Not everybody has access to native speaker teachers. To those people (e.g. me), shit like the IPA is a godsend, and in cases when it does not adequately do its job (such as when describing the numerous kinds of ""palatal stops"", an area which the IPA has long been observed to be very, very unsatisfactory), then it ought to be revised.Rory wrote:This is why we learn languages from teachers and not from Wikipedia. It's simply impossible to get a truly native pronunciation from an IPA transcription; that's not even what the IPA was designed for in the first place.
"It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be said, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is.' Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."
– The Gospel of Thomas
– The Gospel of Thomas
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: Palatal Stops
IPA sucks for most things except total standardization and obscure sounds that APN can't write well. What else is there that IPA is better than either APN or canIPA at?
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
Re: Palatal Stops
True, but those alternatives are still much preferable to "just ask your teacher".
"It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be said, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is.' Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."
– The Gospel of Thomas
– The Gospel of Thomas
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: Palatal Stops
True, but that doesn't mean it's not obvious from looking at the thing that the IPA was designed by a committee of old French bureaucrats.
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
- Hallow XIII
- Avisaru
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:40 pm
- Location: Under Heaven
Re: Palatal Stops
Attempts at standardization of things tend to be hopelessly unsatisfactory, but at least the IPA is a better example that other such attempts that shall not here be named. Although the fact that the IPA cardinal vowel points are modelled on those of French does seem a bit presumptuous to me.Nortaneous wrote:True, but that doesn't mean it's not obvious from looking at the thing that the IPA was designed by a committee of old French bureaucrats.
Also, what the heck is an APN? American Phonetic Notation?
陳第 wrote:蓋時有古今,地有南北;字有更革,音有轉移,亦勢所必至。
Read all about my excellent conlangsR.Rusanov wrote:seks istiyorum
sex want-PRS-1sg
Basic Conlanging Advice
- Drydic
- Smeric
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
- Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
- Contact:
Re: Palatal Stops
Yep.
It's not as standardized as the IPA, obviously, but the majority of it doesn't vary too much. Vowels are the exception to that generalization. Blah blah all the points in the schwa etc thread, yes, but having a consistent set of vowel symbols is extremely useful (this is part of why I hate "standardized" symbols for phonemes, at that point you might as well just stop writing a symbol and go with the the BATH vowel/the NURSE vowel system).
It's not as standardized as the IPA, obviously, but the majority of it doesn't vary too much. Vowels are the exception to that generalization. Blah blah all the points in the schwa etc thread, yes, but having a consistent set of vowel symbols is extremely useful (this is part of why I hate "standardized" symbols for phonemes, at that point you might as well just stop writing a symbol and go with the the BATH vowel/the NURSE vowel system).
- Radius Solis
- Smeric
- Posts: 1248
- Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:40 pm
- Location: Si'ahl
- Contact:
Re: Palatal Stops
The IPA is trying to meet more than one goal at the same time, and sometimes this creates a conflict of interest. First, it is put forward as a phonetic alphabet, not a phonemic one, being a system for transcribing phones according to their articulation; but then, to keep it to a manageable size and keep it appropriate for what most people want it for, it also tries to limit this to phones that are phonologically useful to transcribe, namely those that contrast in at least some human languages.
This is a good thing. A system that fully met one of these goals at the expense of the other would be a weaker tool than the IPA is. But because those goals are not completely compatible, it comes at the price of having to put up with issues like this one with the palatals.
The mismatch between phonetics and phonology in the palatal region is not an artifact of the transcription system, it is a real behavior of human languages. [t] and [k] do not have nearly so much of an issue: languages strongly tend to have a /t/ and a /k/, and there is a quite strong tendency for certain very specific articulations to fill these roles. If you imagine POA as a matter of points along a front-back spectrum, languages cluster tightly at certain points for where they put their /t/ and their /k/. But that's not nearly so true of languages with a /c/ - it is quite common for languages to have POA role for "between /t/ and /k/", but there is a lot less unity between languages as to what phones they fill this role with. There is no single pretty cluster at some mythical point point on the spectrum we could call a "true palatal stop", but instead five or six smaller clusters... and the most common phones to fill that role are [tS)] and [ts)], which, sadly, are the ones least describable as "palatal stops" in articulatory terms.
So, trying to be both articulatorily accurate and phonologically useful at the same time gets us into trouble. You guys suggesting the adoption of new symbols are, ultimately, quibbling over exactly where the balance between the two goals should lie. And it is quibbling. It's futile, in the big picture, because for every purpose for which you reduce the need to patch up your palatal transcriptions with English description, you introduce that need for some other purpose.
This is a good thing. A system that fully met one of these goals at the expense of the other would be a weaker tool than the IPA is. But because those goals are not completely compatible, it comes at the price of having to put up with issues like this one with the palatals.
The mismatch between phonetics and phonology in the palatal region is not an artifact of the transcription system, it is a real behavior of human languages. [t] and [k] do not have nearly so much of an issue: languages strongly tend to have a /t/ and a /k/, and there is a quite strong tendency for certain very specific articulations to fill these roles. If you imagine POA as a matter of points along a front-back spectrum, languages cluster tightly at certain points for where they put their /t/ and their /k/. But that's not nearly so true of languages with a /c/ - it is quite common for languages to have POA role for "between /t/ and /k/", but there is a lot less unity between languages as to what phones they fill this role with. There is no single pretty cluster at some mythical point point on the spectrum we could call a "true palatal stop", but instead five or six smaller clusters... and the most common phones to fill that role are [tS)] and [ts)], which, sadly, are the ones least describable as "palatal stops" in articulatory terms.
So, trying to be both articulatorily accurate and phonologically useful at the same time gets us into trouble. You guys suggesting the adoption of new symbols are, ultimately, quibbling over exactly where the balance between the two goals should lie. And it is quibbling. It's futile, in the big picture, because for every purpose for which you reduce the need to patch up your palatal transcriptions with English description, you introduce that need for some other purpose.
Re: Palatal Stops
The alveolo-palatals? They removed those from IPA and they're now transcribed t̠ʲ d̠ʲ n̠ʲ l̠ʲ IIRC.Nortaneous wrote:They really should add ȶ ȡ ȵ ȴ to IPA.
- Hallow XIII
- Avisaru
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:40 pm
- Location: Under Heaven
Re: Palatal Stops
Which is a bullshit, as everybody leaves out the lower diacritic.Qwynegold wrote:The alveolo-palatals? They removed those from IPA and they're now transcribed t̠ʲ d̠ʲ n̠ʲ l̠ʲ IIRC.Nortaneous wrote:They really should add ȶ ȡ ȵ ȴ to IPA.
陳第 wrote:蓋時有古今,地有南北;字有更革,音有轉移,亦勢所必至。
Read all about my excellent conlangsR.Rusanov wrote:seks istiyorum
sex want-PRS-1sg
Basic Conlanging Advice
Re: Palatal Stops
I just love it when someone decides to arbitrarily downgrade something like this for no good reason...
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.
Re: Palatal Stops
No, they were never in the IPA to begin with. I've never seen them used outside of Chinese dialectology (although my experience is limited).Qwynegold wrote:The alveolo-palatals? They removed those from IPA and they're now transcribed t̠ʲ d̠ʲ n̠ʲ l̠ʲ IIRC.Nortaneous wrote:They really should add ȶ ȡ ȵ ȴ to IPA.
The man of science is perceiving and endowed with vision whereas he who is ignorant and neglectful of this development is blind. The investigating mind is attentive, alive; the mind callous and indifferent is deaf and dead. - 'Abdu'l-Bahá
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: Palatal Stops
But IPA's design goals are pretty clear: minimize diacritics by creating two separate symbols for every pair of sounds that a language contrasts -- except, in practice, affricates, and the dental/alveolar contrast, where it would be a pain in the ass to create that many new symbols even though there are plenty of languages that contrast them. Distinguishing coronal and dorsal palatals doesn't go against those design goals at all; they contrast in Yanyuwa. Besides, when using IPA for phonetic transcription, there's no good way to specify which: the symbols for palatals are ambiguous (someRadius Solis wrote:So, trying to be both articulatorily accurate and phonologically useful at the same time gets us into trouble.
It's not like the distinction between apical and subapical consonants, where the already unimportant phonetic detail is generally clear from the language you're talking about... but even then, they contrast in Toda!
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
- Radius Solis
- Smeric
- Posts: 1248
- Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:40 pm
- Location: Si'ahl
- Contact:
Re: Palatal Stops
Hardly idiotic in phonemic transcription, considering that /p t c k/ is our stop system. Disagreement about the /c/ part boils down to tradition, and squeamishness about phoneme symbols not matching their associated phones, neither of which change the basic facts about our language.Nortaneous wrote:(someidiotspeople even use them for the English postalveolar affricates!)
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: Palatal Stops
Have fun writing rules for realization of the plural morpheme with that analysis.Radius Solis wrote:Hardly idiotic in phonemic transcription, considering that /p t c k/ is our stop system.
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
Re: Palatal Stops
Easy. /c/ = [+strid], /p t k/ = [-strid]Nortaneous wrote:Have fun writing rules for realization of the plural morpheme with that analysis.Radius Solis wrote:Hardly idiotic in phonemic transcription, considering that /p t c k/ is our stop system.
/z/ -> [Iz] / [+strid]_
linguoboy wrote:Ah, so now I know where Towcester pastries originated! Cheers.GrinningManiac wrote:Local pronunciation - /ˈtoʊ.stə/
- Radius Solis
- Smeric
- Posts: 1248
- Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:40 pm
- Location: Si'ahl
- Contact:
Re: Palatal Stops
Quite so; I did not mean to imply any discarding of /c/'s sibilance.