Fixed.Gaxa wrote:Fur has [z] as an allophone of /j/
[] stand for allophones/phonetic transcriptions, // for phonemes.
I don't see how that's weird?Gaxa wrote:Fur has [z] as an allophone of /j/
I've had non-phonetician lecturers, like a psycholinguistic one recently, whose disciplines overlap with phonetics, and whenever it comes up they just have to sheepishly admit that they have no idea which way around the brackets are meant to go. Some kind of just do a squiggle or just say they don't really care if it's wrong because it's not relevant to their point. Anyway, it's one that is difficult to grasp, so don't worry.Gaxa wrote:Thanks.finlay wrote:Fixed.Gaxa wrote:Fur has [z] as an allophone of /j/
[] stand for allophones/phonetic transcriptions, // for phonemes.
there's a lot of confusion, I think, among conlangers as to how important the distinction actually is a lot of the time. sometimes, just talking about 'sounds' actually is entirely sufficient.finlay wrote:I've had non-phonetician lecturers, like a psycholinguistic one recently, whose disciplines overlap with phonetics, and whenever it comes up they just have to sheepishly admit that they have no idea which way around the brackets are meant to go. Some kind of just do a squiggle or just say they don't really care if it's wrong because it's not relevant to their point. Anyway, it's one that is difficult to grasp, so don't worry.Gaxa wrote:Thanks.finlay wrote:Fixed.Gaxa wrote:Fur has [z] as an allophone of /j/
[] stand for allophones/phonetic transcriptions, // for phonemes.
Is there a convention for neutral brackets, for use when the phonemic/allophonic status of the sound is the very question at issue? I have a feeling I've seen {} used in this context – is that right?finlay wrote:I've had non-phonetician lecturers, like a psycholinguistic one recently, whose disciplines overlap with phonetics, and whenever it comes up they just have to sheepishly admit that they have no idea which way around the brackets are meant to go. Some kind of just do a squiggle or just say they don't really care if it's wrong because it's not relevant to their point. Anyway, it's one that is difficult to grasp, so don't worry.Gaxa wrote:Thanks.finlay wrote:Fixed.Gaxa wrote:Fur has [z] as an allophone of /j/
[] stand for allophones/phonetic transcriptions, // for phonemes.
You could just write the sound without any brackets at all. That's what all my phonology professors have been doing, anyway.Echobeats wrote:Is there a convention for neutral brackets, for use when the phonemic/allophonic status of the sound is the very question at issue? I have a feeling I've seen {} used in this context – is that right?finlay wrote:I've had non-phonetician lecturers, like a psycholinguistic one recently, whose disciplines overlap with phonetics, and whenever it comes up they just have to sheepishly admit that they have no idea which way around the brackets are meant to go. Some kind of just do a squiggle or just say they don't really care if it's wrong because it's not relevant to their point. Anyway, it's one that is difficult to grasp, so don't worry.Gaxa wrote:Thanks. :oops:finlay wrote:Fixed.Gaxa wrote:Fur has [z] as an allophone of /j/
[] stand for allophones/phonetic transcriptions, // for phonemes.
All the Plains Algonquian languages went through some fucking crazy sound changes. See the Correspondence Library (Cheyenne, Arapaho, Gros Ventre [Atsina], and Blackfoot are all Plains Algonquian).*Nortaneous wrote:Example of some fun historical development.
Also, some subdialects of Nias Seletan affricate and labiodentalize /t d/ before /u/: /adudu/ [adz_Pudz_Pu]. Labiodentalization there is more common than affrication. Some speakers apparently even have [pf bv] for those /t d/.
Ignoring the nasal vowels (which are analyzed as /e~ o~/, I think), it violates at least one universal, since it has two low and mid vowels but only one high vowel.Whimemsz wrote:Eh, that's not that strange. Plus we've already mentioned an Iroquoian vowel system earlier, and they're mostly similar to that.
Uto-Aztecan vowel systems are prone to oddities and apparent imbalances. This may partly result from the PUA vowel system of */a i 1 u o/, which a goodly number of modern UA langs have retained, e.g. O'odham and Shoshone. It seems unbalanced, and some have argued it's in violation of the universal that there's always more front vowels than back vowels, but its survival in multiple branches over a time depth of 6k-ish years would seem to imply it's not actually unstable. And the ones that have rearranged their vowel systems, like Hopi, are often still atypical.Nortaneous wrote:Hopi has a vowel system of /a E 2 o i 1/ and some weird allophone fuckery. Also, the differences between the two main dialects are absurdly large.
Unbalanced? Doesn't seem that weird to me; it's a minor variation on /a o @ i u/, and isn't that pretty well attested?Radius Solis wrote:This may partly result from the PUA vowel system of */a i 1 u o/, which a goodly number of modern UA langs have retained, e.g. O'odham and Shoshone. It seems unbalanced, and some have argued it's in violation of the universal that there's always more front vowels than back vowels, but its survival in multiple branches over a time depth of 6k-ish years would seem to imply it's not actually unstable.
Late to the party by 5 years, but no it's not. I complained about a kitchen sink phonology violating a bunch if "universals" some time ago and someone asked for proof that these were universals, and I've slowly been collecting data when I have time; I've found no language that contrasts /q qX/ and a significant minority - maybe even close to half - have [qX] as either a positional allophone or the primary realization of /q/. Affrication of /q'/ is less common, but in light of the /q qX/ relationship doesn't seem out of place, and seems especially likely when there's no other uvular occlusive (see also: Georgian).Nortaneous wrote:Bats has an ejective uvular affricate, but no plain uvular stops. (actually, is affrication on uvular stops that uncommon?)
/ð/ does weird things all over. Irish has it > ɣ, Osco-Umbrian > v, in a few Formosan languages it's related to ɮ, I think it ends up as -j- in some Astur-Leonese dialect(s) just like Faroese, and there's the really off-the-wall -w in Catalan.Bristel wrote:Faroese has [j] in some (or all?) places where /ð/ was in the older language, and it is written <ð>. (I'm guessing this isn't so weird? Do [ð] get lowered a bit as an approximant and then turned into [j] in other languages?)