(L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 637
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » 25 Nov 2018 07:27

Do you ever avoid using IPA when you're talking to "normies" (non-linguistic folks)? Like I was posting about the unusual pronunciation of someone's username on another site so I just wrote it out in "stupid phonetics", something like writing the pronunciation of "education" as "ed-jew-KAY-shun". I wanted to do it more accurately with IPA but figured no one would know how to read it.

User avatar
lsd
roman
roman
Posts: 911
Joined: 11 Mar 2011 21:11
Contact:

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by lsd » 25 Nov 2018 08:14

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
25 Nov 2018 07:27
Do you ever avoid using IPA when you're talking to "normies" (non-linguistic folks)? Like I was posting about the unusual pronunciation of someone's username on another site so I just wrote it out in "stupid phonetics", something like writing the pronunciation of "education" as "ed-jew-KAY-shun". I wanted to do it more accurately with IPA but figured no one would know how to read it.
the difficulty is to adapt the folk-IPA to speakers of different L1 ...

I encountered this difficulty when I decided to write in latin characters my non-alphabetical conlang using the phonetic uses of alpahabet .... each language having its own ... except to use the IPA .. .

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 223
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Pabappa » 25 Nov 2018 15:22

If there's only one sound in question, I'll just say "the vowel of LOVE" or something. I hate the schoolbook transcriptions and would otherwise prefer IPA even if most people wouldn't get it .... It's not that much different than Spanish, for example, unless the word has exotic phonemes, but then the other person wouldn't get it anyway most likely.
Image

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3473
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by elemtilas » 25 Nov 2018 20:25

Pabappa wrote:
25 Nov 2018 15:22
If there's only one sound in question, I'll just say "the vowel of LOVE" or something. I hate the schoolbook transcriptions and would otherwise prefer IPA even if most people wouldn't get it .... It's not that much different than Spanish, for example, unless the word has exotic phonemes, but then the other person wouldn't get it anyway most likely.
It's quite sad. The IPA has been around for a long time and is so useful. I don't about how phonics are taught in the UK or Australia, but in the US we had this horrible phonetic transcription that didn't even make sense when I was five or six years old! I think dictionary publishers and primary school textbook publishers are most at fault in the US. Just teach the kids basic IPA and have done. It will serve them well when they come to learn Spanish or French or Whatever later on.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera

KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 637
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » 25 Nov 2018 22:28

It's at the point where if I consult a dictionary that uses some kind of non-standard phonetic spelling for pronunciation, I have no clue how to read it. I start reading it as IPA until I realize it makes no sense that way.

User avatar
Reyzadren
sinic
sinic
Posts: 425
Joined: 14 May 2017 09:39
Contact:

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Reyzadren » 25 Nov 2018 22:57

I always use IPA when describing pronunciation (online) because it does help those who do recognise it, and the typical "pronounce it like this" wouldn't be accurate most of the time anyway.

Whenever I show IPA to so-called "normies" irl, they concur that it is much more helpful than "stupid phonetics", though ofc irl, I would just say the word slowly and won't actually use IPA unless I can write it down.
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang

Porphyrogenitos
sinic
sinic
Posts: 238
Joined: 21 Jul 2012 07:01
Location: Buffalo, NY

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Porphyrogenitos » 27 Nov 2018 05:18

Does anyone know of any vowel length alternation systems that have developed recently? Or that otherwise have a well-understood origin? And would anyone happen to have links or info about such a system?

User avatar
Zekoslav
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 141
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 15:54

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Zekoslav » 27 Nov 2018 09:56

Porphyrogenitos wrote:
27 Nov 2018 05:18
Does anyone know of any vowel length alternation systems that have developed recently? Or that otherwise have a well-understood origin? And would anyone happen to have links or info about such a system?
Assuming I understood you correctly, any Slavic language with phonemic vowel length has a plenty of vowel length alternations. It's also relatively recent and relatively well understood - however, I've lost track of the papers dealing with this topic. I'll try to find them later.
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who would like to make a conlang, but can't decide what to call what.

- Tewanian languages
- Guide to Slavic accentuation

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3046
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 03:06

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Shemtov » 28 Nov 2018 21:23

I'm learning Bukharian, which is in the Iranian branch. The word for "brother" is /baratar/, which surprised me as I thought in Iranian PIE *Bh>/f/. Anybody know what's going on?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11633
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by shimobaatar » 28 Nov 2018 22:19

Shemtov wrote:
28 Nov 2018 21:23
I'm learning Bukharian, which is in the Iranian branch. The word for "brother" is /baratar/, which surprised me as I thought in Iranian PIE *Bh>/f/. Anybody know what's going on?
I thought the "voiced aspirates" became plain voiced in Iranian? Do you have an example of PIE *bʰ > /f/?

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3046
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 03:06

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Shemtov » 28 Nov 2018 22:26

shimobaatar wrote:
28 Nov 2018 22:19
Shemtov wrote:
28 Nov 2018 21:23
I'm learning Bukharian, which is in the Iranian branch. The word for "brother" is /baratar/, which surprised me as I thought in Iranian PIE *Bh>/f/. Anybody know what's going on?
I thought the "voiced aspirates" became plain voiced in Iranian? Do you have an example of PIE *bʰ > /f/?
Didn't *dh>/θ/ and *gh>/x/ or am I mixing things up?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11633
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by shimobaatar » 28 Nov 2018 22:30

Shemtov wrote:
28 Nov 2018 22:26
shimobaatar wrote:
28 Nov 2018 22:19
Shemtov wrote:
28 Nov 2018 21:23
I'm learning Bukharian, which is in the Iranian branch. The word for "brother" is /baratar/, which surprised me as I thought in Iranian PIE *Bh>/f/. Anybody know what's going on?
I thought the "voiced aspirates" became plain voiced in Iranian? Do you have an example of PIE *bʰ > /f/?
Didn't *dh>/θ/ and *gh>/x/ or am I mixing things up?
I think /θ/ is the Old Persian reflex of *ḱ. I don't know about /x/ off the top of my head.

User avatar
Zekoslav
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 141
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 15:54

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Zekoslav » 29 Nov 2018 15:29

Voiced aspirate > unvoiced fricative happened word-initially in Italic. A good list of PIE. to Iranian sound changes is here (it's in German, which I can barely understand, but it's formulation of sound changes is independant of language).

As for where Iranian voiceless fricatives come from: basically, /p/, /t/ and /k/ become fricatives whenever followed by a consonant, including a later lost /h/ (alternatively, clusters of stop + /h/ first become voiceless aspirates which then become voiceless fricatives).
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who would like to make a conlang, but can't decide what to call what.

- Tewanian languages
- Guide to Slavic accentuation

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3274
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 » 29 Nov 2018 15:31

From what I can tell looking through Wikipedia, the aspirated voiced stops from Proto-Indo-Iranian merged into the unaspirated voiced stops in Proto-Iranian, while the aspirated voiceless plosives became voiceless fricatives, as did the unaspirated voiceless plosives when followed by another consonant.

As Shimobaatar points out, Old Persian also derived /θ/ through fronting of the palatal , ultimately from PIE *ḱ (except in when followed by *w, when *ćw yields /s/).

I think Italic has *bʰ to *f word-initially, and Latino-Faliscan additionally has * to *f in the same environment.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11633
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by shimobaatar » 29 Nov 2018 17:58

Zekoslav wrote:
29 Nov 2018 15:29
As for where Iranian voiceless fricatives come from: basically, /p/, /t/ and /k/ become fricatives whenever followed by a consonant, including a later lost /h/ (alternatively, clusters of stop + /h/ first become voiceless aspirates which then become voiceless fricatives).
sangi39 wrote:
29 Nov 2018 15:31
while the aspirated voiceless plosives became voiceless fricatives
Oh, interesting, I thought that the voiceless aspirated stops were a development specific to Indo-Aryan.
Zekoslav wrote:
29 Nov 2018 15:29
Voiced aspirate > unvoiced fricative happened word-initially in Italic.
sangi39 wrote:
29 Nov 2018 15:31
I think Italic has *bʰ to *f word-initially, and Latino-Faliscan additionally has * to *f in the same environment.
Yeah, from what I understand, Latin has PIE *bʰ *dʰ *gʰ *gʷʰ > /f f h f/ word-initially, possibly with an intermediate stage of *ɸ *θ *x *xʷ in Proto-Italic. I believe the same thing happens both word-initially and word-medially in the Sabellic group? In Latin, though, medial *bʰ *dʰ *gʰ *gʷʰ mostly become /b d h w/, again with a possible intermediate stage of *β *ð *ɣ *ɣʷ in Proto-Italic. However, I think that *dʰ shows up as /b/ instead in some environments, *gʷʰ becomes /gʷ/ after /n/, and *gʰ *gʷʰ both result in /g/ next to other consonants. I'm not sure about Faliscan, but I'd assume it's similar to Latin.

User avatar
Zekoslav
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 141
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 15:54

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Zekoslav » 29 Nov 2018 18:27

shimobaatar wrote:
29 Nov 2018 17:58
Oh, interesting, I thought that the voiceless aspirated stops were a development specific to Indo-Aryan.
Well, there's two possible scenarios for the Iranian development, as I alluded to in my post. Indo-Aryan voiceless aspirates correspond to Iranian voiceless fricatives, and both develop from clusters of a voiceless unaspirated stop and a laryngeal.

One possibility is that the reanalysis of stop + laryngeal clusters as voiceless aspirates happened already in Proto-Indo-Iranian, with Indo-Aryan preserving the aspirates and Iranian fricativizing them.

Another possibility is that they remained clusters in PII. Then, the Iranian development can be explained together with the general change of stop to fricative before a consonant, e.g. *kh > *xh > *x like *kr > *xr, and voiceless aspirates would indeed be a specific Indo-Aryan development.
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who would like to make a conlang, but can't decide what to call what.

- Tewanian languages
- Guide to Slavic accentuation

yangfiretiger121
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 161
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 02:04

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 30 Nov 2018 16:38

My only exposure to the, presumably Swedish, linguist Lindblad is from Wikipedia's article about Swedish's Sj-sound [ɧ], in which the sound's labiodental allophone is transcribed [fˠʷ]. I'm led to believe that it's his transcription because he's, specifically, mentioned as "not using [ɧ] for this allophone. Given that the sound is unique to Swedish, it's understandable that [fˠʷ]'s the only transcription I've seen for the sound in question. Is there a reason other than personal preference he'd include [ˠ] in the transcription, if he's the only one to distinguish it from the velar allophone, when [ʷ] labiovelarizes non-velars and [f] is a fricative?
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

Nachtuil
sinic
sinic
Posts: 429
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 23:16

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Nachtuil » 03 Dec 2018 03:43

*

User avatar
GrandPiano
runic
runic
Posts: 2690
Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by GrandPiano » 03 Dec 2018 04:56

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 16:38
Is there a reason other than personal preference he'd include [ˠ] in the transcription, if he's the only one to distinguish it from the velar allophone, when [ʷ] labiovelarizes non-velars and [f] is a fricative?
While [w] is labio-velar, I think [ʷ] technically only indicates that a consonant is labialized, not necessarily that it's also velarized.
:eng: - Native
:chn: - B2
:esp: - A2
:jpn: - A2

yangfiretiger121
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 161
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 02:04

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 04 Dec 2018 17:26

GrandPiano wrote:
03 Dec 2018 04:56
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 16:38
Is there a reason other than personal preference he'd include [ˠ] in the transcription, if he's the only one to distinguish it from the velar allophone, when [ʷ] labiovelarizes non-velars and [f] is a fricative?
While [w] is labio-velar, I think [ʷ] technically only indicates that a consonant is labialized, not necessarily that it's also velarized.
Wikipedia (emphasis mine) wrote:The most common labialized consonants are labialized velars. Most other labialized sounds also have simultaneous velarization, and the process may then be more precisely called labio-velarization
Ah. Given that the above quote specifies "most" and Hadza has [fʷ], I'm starting to understand why he includes [ˠ] in the transcription. However, my untrained ear can't tell if Hadza's sound is labio-velarized or, simply, labialized.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

Post Reply