LL-L "Phonology" 2002.01.16 (03) [E]

Thu Jan 17 00:27:49 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 16.JAN.2002 (03) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Phonology"

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Phonology
>
> You may remember that our Dutch-speaking friends insist that there is a
> phonetic difference between _f_ [f] and _v_ [v"] in Dutch?  While I do
> not doubt that they perceive it, I still find it confusing, because a
> devoiced /v/ ought to be voiceless, thus [f].  If it is a different
> phoneme it ought to have its own symbol, for the devoicing diacritic (a
> small circle in IPA, " in SAMPA) leads one to assume the result of a
> phonological rule, i.e., devoicing.  So, perhaps the IPA (here SAMPA)
> system is imperfect in that it does not show degrees of voicelessness,
> if there is such a thing.  To avoid such doubts I personally would, as I
> said, opt for consistent [W] in Scots.

Ron,

I was just reading through this discussion again and on
coming across your remark about "degree of voicelessness"
I started pronouncing "twist" and suchlike with a view to
trying to gauge the degree of voicelessness. It seemed to
me to depend to some extent on the emphasis with which I
say the word. I find it's difficult (for me as a Scots
speaker) to pronounce a truly voiced "w" here unless I
lengthen the "w" somewhat to give the voicing time to
"kick in". This immediately made me think of aspiration
as occurs after voiceless stops in Scots and English -
caused, as I understand it, by a delay in the application
of voicing in pronouncing a vowel after an unvoiced stop.

Do you think that all that's happening here is normal Scots
aspiration from the voiceless "t" overlapping the "w", which
is generally said quickly enough for the aspiration to cut
all or most of the voicing, so that all we really need to do
is extend the aspiration rule to apply to, say, consonantal
sonorants as well as vowels?

I find that if I say a word like "twist" very slowly then
the voicing of the "w" automatically cuts in, whereas if
I say a word like "what" (Scots pronunciation, of course),
the unvoiced "w" is sustained. This suggest that, looking
at it from a purely mechanical viewpoint, the [tw"] could
be treated along with aspiration (and perhaps written [t(h)w]
in a detailed transcription? - though this doesn't express
the existence of overlap) while the [xW] would be treated
as a separate phoneme.

Does this make sense? If so then I think I'll try to give
more thought to the mechanical aspects of production in future!

Perhaps a useful further consideration would be the French
pronunciation of a word like "ratatouille" - I can manage a
voiced [w] in a French accent - which again could be explained
as lack of aspiration in French (although I've just looked up
this word in a French dictionary and it expresses the semivowel
as [u] - ah, well, that's "sax an six" as we'd say in Scots!).

Sandy
http://scotstext.org
A dinna dout him, for he says that he
On nae accoont wad ever tell a lee.
                          - C.W.Wade,
                    'The Adventures o McNab'

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Phonology

Sandy,

You wrote above:

> Does this make sense?

It does to me.  At least I think it does.

Aspiration is a strange and in my opinion insufficiently studied thing.  It
tends to be described as something like "a puff of air accompanying a
consonant."  (In Germanic it always accompanies a voiceless consonant, while
in Indic and some Southeast Asian languages voiced consonants can be aspirated
too.)  However, I have noticed that the accompanying [(h)] may in some cases
not be perfectly synchronized with the consonant, i.e., it may begin and/or
end sooner or later.  If this is correct, I can see how aspiration can carry
over beyond the onset of the /w/ in /tw.../ [t(h)w...].  If you pronounce
English _two_, _tea_, _poo_ and _pea_ really slowly, clearly and emphatically
(unless your dialect does not have aspiration) you will notice that aspiration
spreads; i.e., the vowel is also accompanied by a puff of air.

To take a step outside the Lowlands, consider the fact that for instance in
many Mandarin Chinese dialects aspiration is not an accompanying [h] sound but
a [x] sound (as in German _ach_) before back vowels (e.g., [t(h)a] = [t(x)a])
and a [C] sound (as in German _ich_ and _China_) before front vowels (e.g.,
[t(h)i] = [t(C)i] ~ [t'(C)i] ~ [t's'(C)i]).  Thus, the articulation of
aspiration can differ.  In very slow and deliberate speech, and especially in
Peking opera speech and singing, "aspiration" -- or should we say "the
accompanying fricative"? -- clearly continues beyond the stop (something like
[t(x)xa] and [t(C)Ci], or [t(x:)a] and [t(C:)i]?) if you will.  Thus, the
duration of aspiration may be longer than that of the consonant it
accompanies.

Also, aspiration can shift, as though it had a life of its own.  Yes, sir!
Earlier researchers of Yughur (Sarigh Yughur, Yellow Uyghur), a hitherto
poorly studied Turkic language of China, wrote about "aspirated vowels," and
in China they still cling to this.  What this really turned out to be is
"preaspiration": aspiration shifts from an underlyingly voiceless
syllable-final consonant to the preceding vowel.  For example, the word for
'name' is underlyingly /ad/ and is pronounced [at] (due to devoicing).  The
word for 'horse' is underlyingly /at/ and is pronounced [a(h)t] ~ [a(x)t],
which to my ears sounds like [aht] ~ [axt].  In rapid speech, the vowel may
then be devoiced (i.e., "whispered": [a"ht] ~ [a"xt]), and finally, when a
suffix is added, "aspiration" shifts to the beginning (/at+lAr/ [ha"t:ar]
'horses').  At the same time -- and the two worlds did not meet until I
pointed out the similarity -- people were talking about "aspirated vowels" in
Modern Icelandic, which meanwhile has come to be correctly called
"preaspiration;" e.g., _epli_ ['e(h)pli] 'apples', _opna_ ['o(h)pna] 'to
open', _stoppa_ [stO(h)p:a] 'to stop'.

I have heard of voiced aspiration ([(h/)], like the /h/ in Czech _Praha_), but
I don't remember in which languages it occurs (probably Indo-Aryan or
Dravidian ones).  However, in English, German, Low Saxon and, I assume, Scots
it is h-like, thus voiceless.  If in Scots it spreads to the following glide
/w/, as in _twist_, I can well imagine that this would cause the glide to be
voiceless, at least at the beginning.  This would then explain why Scots
speakers perceive initial and post-consonantly /w/ as somewhat different.

> while the [xW] would be treated
> as a separate phoneme.

How about writing the phoneme as /(x)W/, with a parenthesized or superscript x
to indicate that it is "optional"?

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
 * Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================