LL-L "Phonology" 2002.01.12 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 12.JAN.2002 (04) * 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: Pat Reynolds <pat at caerlas.demon.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2002.01.11 (03) [E]

In message <3C3F3CC6.93DFEB1C at yahoo.com>, Lowlands-L
<sassisch at yahoo.com> writes
>Tri-sylllabic examples will be sought.

There is a tri-syllable in this Bristol joke (punchline unfortunately
will be spoilt for those who've followed the thread):

A family moves to Bristol, and finds their TV doesn't work any more.  So
they call in a TV repair man, who tells them, 'I know what the problem
is: it's your aerial.  So the family go and buy a new aerial, but the TV
still doesn't work.  So they call back the TV man and complain that the
TV isn't working.  And he explains: 'it's not the aerial what goes on
your roof that's the trouble, it's the aerial you live in!'

This isn't a terribly good example, as it's a joke, told me by someone
not from Bristol.

Best wishes to all,

Pat
--
Pat Reynolds
pat at caerlas.demon.co.uk
   "It might look a bit messy now, but just you come back in 500 years
time"
   (T. Pratchett)

----------

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

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Phonology
>
> While initial voiceless (not "devoiced") /W/ appears to be indeed
> a phoneme
> (since you can't explain it as an allophone, and it contrasts with initial
> /w/), the [W] following a voiceless consonant can be seen (1) as
> a devoiced
> (i.e., assimilated) allophone of /w/ or (2) as an underlying /W/.
>  I guess no
> harm would be done either way.  However, personally I favor choice (1),
> because _w_ after voiceless consonants *always* surfaces as
> voiceless.  This
> seems "neater" to me.  In that case, I guess, you would have the choice of
> writing it as [W] or as [w"] in phonetic representation, the pronunciation
> being the same.

Thanks, Ron. I agree that although (2) is a more "textbook"
solution, (1) is "neater" if you look at all aspects of the
problem.

I'd like to ask as well what you think the consequences for
transcription would be if I used (1). In transcribing:

"Wha saw the twinty pipers?"

phonetically as:

[WQ: sQ: D@ 'tw"In?I 'p(h)@ip(h)@rz]

would the voiceless [W] and devoiced [w"] be a source of confusion,
or would someone who knew IPA well enough be able to see what was
going on, ie that one is an allophone and the other is being expressed
as a different allophone subjected to assimilation?

Phonemic transcription gives no problems with (1), of course - in fact
(1) seems to me to make phonemic transcription easier.

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:

> I'd like to ask as well what you think the consequences for
> transcription would be if I used (1). In transcribing:
>
> "Wha saw the twinty pipers?"
>
> phonetically as:
>
> [WQ: sQ: D@ 'tw"In?I 'p(h)@ip(h)@rz]

It seems fine to me.  However, since your phonetic representation should
be seen as independent, and because people might wonder if there *is* a
difference between [W] and [w"], I would probably opt for ...

[WQ: sQ: D@ 'tWIn?I 'p(h)@ip(h)@rz]

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.

I hope this helped, and I wish you the best with your project.

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
=======================================================================