Pol otveta

[Edward M Dumanis]

No, No, No.
Pol komnaty byl horosho vymyt.
Pol komnaty bylo zastavleno veshchami.

No phonetic difference whatsoever!

Edward Dumanis <dumanis at acsu.buffalo.edu>


On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Georges Adassovsky wrote:

> At 11:52 PM 8/12/97, Loren Billings wrote:
>
> >Dear colleagues,
> >
> >I'm wondering if any of you know a phonetic distinction between the
> >following two _so^cetanija_:
> >
> >1.  pol komnaty "floor of room"
> >
> >2.  polkomnaty  "half of room"
> >
> >I already know the following:  Whereas /o/ after a non-palatalized
> >consonant reduces to [a] or [@] (=schwa), depending on whether it's in
> >first-pretonic unstressed syllable or not (e.g., /moloko/ --> [m at laKO]
> >"milk"), the /o/ in _pol_ "1/2" always retains lip-rounding (i.e., example
> >1. above is never *[p at l...] or *[pal...], but always [pol...]).
> >
> >Still, it seems to my ear that 1. and 2. are phonetically distinct; 1.
> >behaves like a so-called stump compound (like _zavkafedry_ "department
> >head"), while 2. is a combination of two morphological words with separate
> >word stresses (but phrasal emphasis only on the second word).
>
> It seems to me that 1 is pronounced with two stresses, two full "o"  and a
> little stop between the two words, while 2 has only one stress, no
> stopping, and the first "o" may be a little reduced or not depending on the
> speaker. Some speakers may also reduce the "l" (w).
> But depending on the context, il is also possible to put emphasis on "pol"
> in 2. In this case, the "o" would receive a large stress, but there would
> be no stopping between "l" and "k".
> Difficult to establish a general rule without context. Is the utterer
> speaking about some neutral "half a room", or is he willing to tell "a part
> of the room as large as its half" ?
>
> Georges Adassovsky
> E-Mail : Gadassov at mail.pf
> S-Mail : B.P. 380330 Tamanu, 98718 Punaauia, French Polynesia.
> Tel 689 58 38 40 home, 689 58 37 37 office (GMT - 12)
>