tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post6422576130504938870..comments2024-03-17T09:14:13.950+00:00Comments on John Wells’s phonetic blog: phoneme and allophoneJohn Wellshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-78698520668812767232020-07-08T21:52:36.702+01:002020-07-08T21:52:36.702+01:00Haloo pak^^
Kami dari SENTANAPOKER ingin menawark...Haloo pak^^<br /><br />Kami dari SENTANAPOKER ingin menawarkan pak^^<br /><br />Untuk saat ini kami menerima Deposit Melalui Pulsa ya pak.<br /><br />*untuk minimal deposit 10ribu<br />*untuk minimal Withdraw 25ribu<br /><br />*untuk deposit pulsa kami menerima provider<br />-XL<br />-Telkomsel<br /><br /><br />untuk bonus yang kami miliki kami memiliki<br />*bonus cashback 0,5%<br />*bunus refferal 20%<br />*bonus gebiar bulanan (N-max,samsung Note 10+,Iphone xr 64G,camera go pro 7hero,Apple airpods 2 ,dan freechips)<br /><br />Daftar Langsung Di:<br /><br />SENTANAPOKER<br /><br />Kontak Kami;<br /><br />WA : +855 9647 76509<br />Line : SentanaPoker<br />Wechat : SentanaPokerLivechat Sentanapoker<br /><br />Proses deposit dan withdraw tercepat bisa anda rasakan jika bermain di Sentanapoker. So… ? tunggu apa lagi ? Mari bergabung dengan kami. Pelayanan CS yang ramah dan Proffesional dan pastinya sangat aman juga bisa anda dapatkan di Sentanapoker.yessy haryantohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16503331838637071246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-60953178534495257182012-06-04T15:32:24.434+01:002012-06-04T15:32:24.434+01:00Wojciech
I don't like this 'in the brain&...Wojciech<br /><br /><i>I don't like this 'in the brain' talk among other things because it suggests that we should look into brains in order to hear phonemes.</i><br /><br />I don't see where else we should look. A serviceable <b>description</b> of a phoneme may be expressed in acoustic terms, but it can only be approximate — close but approximate. Phonemes are learnt in the brain, recognised in the brain, produced in the brain. If the brain can't define it, then it isn't a phoneme.<br /><br />As for the cat, if you hallucinate that you see one, it follows that there is a cat-recognition template in your brain. And that's what a phoneme is — a speech-sound recognition template.<br /><br />There is a difference. If there's a flaw in your cat-recognition template, it doesn't affect too much your interactions with small domestic mammals. But a flaw in your speech-sound recognition template is liable to degrade your ability to converse with people.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-28709880376740555422012-06-02T04:04:22.759+01:002012-06-02T04:04:22.759+01:00I believe it was never anything but a joke: a sati...I believe it was never anything but a joke: a satire on the overly broad defiition of phoneme, as if phonetic similarity counted for nothing at all.John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-21280690380939866912012-06-01T21:02:32.502+01:002012-06-01T21:02:32.502+01:00Indeed, if there is no problem with dark-l-only ac...Indeed, if there is no problem with dark-l-only accents like mine and many Americans', why should there be a problem with light-l-only accents?John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-37650284043564151862012-05-15T11:53:42.002+01:002012-05-15T11:53:42.002+01:00What matters to the teacher is not the symbolism b...What matters to the teacher is not the symbolism but the <b>repertoire</b>. And this repertoire is still defined as the structuralists decreed: by <b>difference</b>. That's why, Wojciech, I find your recurring problem with <b>ʌ</b> so very very simple. Difficult yes, but simple.<br /><br />The spoken English I teach (used to) has a distinct vowel phoneme for STRUT words. I came from a region where this was not so, but my mother insisted on a total distinction between STRUT and FOOT. Since my mother's prejudices are still held by some British speakers, I would still teach the STRUT vowel as a distinct phoneme — except for students living in certain parts of England. Any symbol would do but <b>u</b> is needed for GOOSE words and <b>a</b> would introduce needless confusion. The symbol <b>ʌ</b> has the considerable merit of <b>dissociation</b> — it doesn't invite confusion with BOOK, GOOSE, TRAP, PALM or BATH. So even if some native speakers' STRUT vowels are closer to <b>a</b> that's no reason for not using the strikingly unusual symbol <b>ʌ</b>.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-44528555212846096702012-05-15T11:45:37.093+01:002012-05-15T11:45:37.093+01:00Duchesse, Wojciech, John Cowan
I was strangely un...Duchesse, Wojciech, John Cowan<br /><br />I was strangely unengaged — to the point of bafflement when I read this exchange. It's suddenly occurred to me why that was.<br /><br />I spent my professional life teaching non-native speakers to communicate in acceptable spoken English. For me that entailed a target phonology more or less equivalent to RP — broadly similar to my own accent and a huge number of middle-class British accents which John W. might class as 'near RP' or 'modified RP' and a great many regional accents that speakers have modified in the direction of RP. <br /><br />For teachers like me, what we find in the standard resources (Jones, Gimpson etc and their successors) is a model based on RP. If students are directed to emulate what Jones etc describe, they almost certainly won't sound like RP speakers. (OK, I've met some exceptions.) But hopefully they will sound 'acceptable' with a foreign variant of that broad RP-like accent. (Yes, of course it's different for American teachers)<br /><br />So I really, really don't care what phone students use in BATH words. All I want is that they use <b>either</b> a TRAP vowel <b>or</b> a PALM vowel. In the broad accent there's no room for three target vowels, although specific accents might call for <b>a</b> for specific native-speaker vowels. <br /><br />For me, that's of no interest whatsoever — as long as I'm wearing my teacher's hat, that is. There are two target vowels, therefore there are two <b>phonemes</b>.<br /><br />The PALM vowel is the same phoneme whether pronounced as <b>ɑ:</b> or <b>a</b> — or any modification. And the TRAP vowel has remained the same phoneme even as speakers from the Queen on down the social scale have moved from <b>æ</b> as described by Jones. When I started teaching, we got by with one symbol with or without a length mark:<br />TRAP: a or ɑ<br />PALM : a: or ɑ:<br />In the structuralist climate of the time nothing mattered but <b>difference</b>. There was a slogan in French — possibly from De Saussure. And people quoted the analogy of chess pieces, which could be of any shape and could be made of any material — short of ice.<br /><br />An outfit I worked for in Italy placed enormous importance on the symbol <b>æ</b>, for purely pedagogical reasons: to steer learners to a higher-prestige pronunciation that didn't employ Italian <b>a</b>. Pedagogic but snobbish.<br /><br />The reason for avoiding the symbol <b>ə:</b> is similarly non-phonetic. In English, vowels frequently <b>reduce</b> to <b>ə</b> in the absence of stress. This is an association which teachers want to develop in learners. Many of us were taught the non-phonetic reason for the use of the term <i>schwa</i> in Hebrew grammar. <br /><br />Besides, the vowel in commA and (for non-rhotics) lettER might well be closer to <b>ʌ</b> in accents that are not very unlike RP. And to cap it all, there can hardly be any non-phonetician non-rhotic native speakers who perceive any similarity between the commA/lettER vowel and the NURSE vowel.<br /><br />All that matters — with my teaching hat on — is that there are two target vowels, and therefore two <b>phonemes</b>, even in some rhotic accents. Any two symbols would serve to represent them — except that the lettER/commA vowel is associated with teaching items such as <i>ðæt~ðət</i>, and has a distinct <b>name</b>.<br /><br />Similarly with DRESS. There's only one E phoneme — as long as we perceive the FACE sound as a diphthong. Of course DRESS and FACE must be distinguished in notation but an added <b>i</b> or <b>ɪ</b> or <b>j</b> will do the trick. It's not the end of the world if foreign learners use something close to <b>e</b> for the DRESS vowel provided that they have a distinctive pronunciation for FACE.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-61021478690465081202012-05-13T17:19:51.409+01:002012-05-13T17:19:51.409+01:00These are always a problem in this area, and many ...These are always a problem in this area, and many of you are not making things easier for us. <br /><br />And if the core questing and answer cannot narrow down their peripheries meaningfully, the redundancies are left for further complications than their answers can be drown from their respective semantic features. So the question is then where linguists and students of linguistics can go for an answer by conventional means of their times and research studies if driven conclusions are far away from such analyzes for correctness. In facebooks? In blogs? <br /><br />If it is fine among linguists that 'phoneme' is as the primary anatomical-landmark sound-features of the vocal tract that has underlying orthographic representation (though not really in the sense ‘contrastive’ or ‘predictable’, but as the concept of abstractions from concrete sound phenomena) and an allophone as a secondary anatomical-landmark sound-features, the most striking is the take that what constitutes an allophone depends on the linier order of a target phonetic feature and the conditioned tone in question--like why not [l] and [ɫ] phenomenon if so. An answer to this is, yes, but how correctly is our problem since the dark ‘l’ also has the autosegmental realization as an allophone.LangLinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14326820272652746118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-91533465180915011842012-05-13T09:27:22.656+01:002012-05-13T09:27:22.656+01:00Well, good old George William Frederic was not suc...Well, good old George William Frederic was not such as madman as some Anglo-Saxon philosophers make him out to be.<br /><br />CheersPodpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-3824489891417660922012-05-12T17:39:28.040+01:002012-05-12T17:39:28.040+01:00It's true. I didn't think about it, but I ...It's true. I didn't think about it, but I have indeed a Hegelian background. As for whether this language is 'germane' -- well, I'm using it. Habitually even. In my understanding the apparent peculiarities of this kind of philosophical terminology stem from a clarification of what appears only as implications in more traditional philosophical language. Your mileage may vary.<br /><br />@Darin Flynn: Thank you very much!Utishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14842422973133567275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-827383692223844602012-05-11T14:57:51.644+01:002012-05-11T14:57:51.644+01:00Interestingly, Amis's son Martin also misuses ...Interestingly, Amis's son Martin also misuses the term phoneme, in much the same way.John Barlowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15548062877562944952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-85239374660696565082012-05-11T12:23:57.703+01:002012-05-11T12:23:57.703+01:00sorry, I meant 'germane' of course, I mean...sorry, I meant 'germane' of course, I meant do you feel drawn to this language, be it German or English (in translation)?Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-73397163776340774452012-05-11T12:21:27.788+01:002012-05-11T12:21:27.788+01:00Ad Utis
'Well, since we're talking about ...Ad Utis<br /><br />'Well, since we're talking about the philosophical categories 'concrete' (which is *not* the same thing as 'sensual') and 'abstract':<br /><br />It's the phoneme which is concrete, as it is to be thought as the concretion of its heterogeneous allophones.'<br /><br />You are using the word 'concrete' in a Hegelian sense; have you, if I may ask, any Hegelian sympathies or inclinations, or does his language feel german to you?Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-51885079284088339032012-05-11T08:31:58.795+01:002012-05-11T08:31:58.795+01:00Cited-above Elan Dresher's chapter from the ne...Cited-above Elan Dresher's chapter from the new Companion to Phonology (Blackwell, 2011) is a <a href="http://www.companiontophonology.com/fragr_image/phoneme" rel="nofollow">freebie</a>.Darin Flynnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09519128908973046644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-4932454699929391032012-05-10T13:28:02.199+01:002012-05-10T13:28:02.199+01:00Well, since we're talking about the philosophi...Well, since we're talking about the philosophical categories 'concrete' (which is *not* the same thing as 'sensual') and 'abstract':<br /><br />It's the phoneme which is concrete, as it is to be thought as the concretion of its heterogeneous allophones. It would be thus an example of an 'concrete universal'. On the other hand, it is the phone which is abstract, as it is in its very concept an abstraction from concrete sensual phenomena, i. e. identifying two concrete speech phenomena as utterances of the same phone is based on abstracting the 'this is it' of the phon from co-articulation, particularities of articulation/intonation, base frequency etc. etc..<br /><br />I'd be very interested to learn more about the critique of 'phoneme' among linguists. If there's no 'satisfactory replacement term', then this implies that there's a need for one and that the concept is still 'active'. Is Chomsky and Halle’s "The Sound Pattern of English" still the canonical text? Or is there something which might be more up to date? (I wouldn't mind, if there would be something on the internet, since I have no easy access to university resources.)Utishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14842422973133567275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-76059140500911353442012-05-10T12:49:08.373+01:002012-05-10T12:49:08.373+01:00Richard
I like your observation of the phoneme
...Richard<br /><br />I like your observation of the phoneme <br /><br /><i>It is perceptual but needs something physical. </i><br /><br />with the caveat which you may not accept that the <i>something physical</i> is a <b>selection</b> from the acoustic signal, and <b>interpretation</b> which may well not be shared by a speaker of another language.<br /><br />I'm not so happy with your take on the allophone<br /><br /><i>An allophone, as is indicated by the square brackets, is a physical phenomenon independent of the listener. It is an abstraction in the same way as when we measure the length of something as one centimetre,</i><br /><br />I think it's more like measuring as one thickness of a pen or one flower stem. It's a <b>graspable</b> unit of perception but not a <b>discrete, constant, objective</b> unit. <br /><br />For language teachers — though not for phoneticians and phonologists — allophones are units in differing in ways that are not obvious to the native speaker — although native speakers can be trained to perceive the differences. <br /><br />If you and I choose to teach the pronunciation of English /l/ to suitably advanced and suitably motivated students, we may well choose to teach [l] and [ɫ] as two teaching items. For me, this no longer has any theoretical implications. It's just a practical convenience.<br /><br />That complementary distribution paradox belongs to the field of phonology, which I think long since turned away from that sort of abstraction to the consideration of acoustic and/or articulatory features.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-28848878614965225792012-05-10T10:51:55.682+01:002012-05-10T10:51:55.682+01:00As as teacher of English, I have always thought of...As as teacher of English, I have always thought of a phoneme as to do with understanding and allophones as to do with sounding like a native speaker.<br />I would see a phoneme as an interaction between knowledge in a listener's brain and the acoustic signal. It is perceptual but needs something physical. <br /><br />An allophone, as is indicated by the square brackets, is a physical phenomenon independent of the listener. It is an abstraction in the same way as when we measure the length of something as one centimetre, this is an approximation to an ideal version of the centimetre but it is a different order of thing to a phoneme.<br /><br />Did there not use to be an argument that because /h/ and /ng/ has complementary distributions there were really just one phoneme? Is this accepted anywhere now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-1363742615771298932012-05-07T08:12:23.574+01:002012-05-07T08:12:23.574+01:00I'd say that the 'brain' (mind) simply...I'd say that the 'brain' (mind) simply disregards, makes abstraction from, the differences between allophones and concentrates on what is common to them, and in so doing perceives a phoneme, e. g. the phoneme 'd', whether in 'fiddle' or 'didn't, or 'draw' or 'bade' or 'had it'. This perception is not a purely passive copy of what is being heard, it's sense-data reformed and reorganised, but not an illusion (as if though all those phones above, conventionally spelt 'd', had nothing in common.<br /><br />Such perception is also holistic in the sense that it is structured to some extent in the light of former perceptions, e. g. you perceive two different phonemes in 'caddy' and 'city' (if you are attuned to American English) even though what attacks your ears is exactly the same. This is analogous to seeing a cat for what it is even though it at a given moment looks like something else, e. g. a weasel or such.<br /><br />I don't like this 'in the brain' talk among other things because it suggests that we should look into brains in order to hear phonemes. When a cat is seen but there is not cat to be seen it is better to say, methinks, that there is an illusion of a cat (more or less vivid) than to say that a cat is in the brain (can it possibly damage the brain with his claws?)Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-55437064178802677082012-05-07T08:05:24.727+01:002012-05-07T08:05:24.727+01:00Not so much, Duchess. John uses /e/ on this blog ...Not so much, Duchess. John uses /e/ on this blog and elsewhere for the DRESS vowel, which is far closer to [ɛ] than to [e]. However, it's easier to type [e], and it's theoretically entirely in order, so he uses it.<br /><br />And of course some of us use /æ/ and /ɚ/ in our BATH and NURSE words, no matter how excruciatingly correctly pronounced.John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-66240662706846185762012-05-07T00:21:17.019+01:002012-05-07T00:21:17.019+01:00An allophone is only like a cat if allophones exis...An allophone is only like a cat if allophones exist.<br /><br />We don't talk of cats out of convenience, but It's at least arguable that convenience is the only excuse for taking of allophones.<br /><br />Suppose that a phoneme is more like an illusion — not the sort you see in a fevered or drugged state, but the sort that your brain creates as a sort of correction to a confusing input. For example, there's a famous one that may not work without full control of the typesetting:<br /><br />PARIS IN THE<br /><br />THE SPRING<br /><br />With the right justification and spacing, nobody notices the repeated THE.<br /><br />If this is really the case — as I believe it might be — then the phoneme exists <b>only</b> in the brain.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-30530590787563505702012-05-06T20:36:03.669+01:002012-05-06T20:36:03.669+01:00I am not a linguist but I suspect they'd tell ...I am not a linguist but I suspect they'd tell you that your ɑː is a bit different in your baths from what it is in your afters or your asks or your dances or your fathers or such, and again a bit different from one bath to another, from one ask to another and so on. The nearly infinite variability of allophones-types (first set of contrasts) and allophones-tokens (second set). Depending on how good your ear is, you will hear these differences or not, most often not, I suspect. Most of the time they will be just ɑː's to you, and that is why it is good to have all of this conceptual grid (phoneme, allophone, and so on) and the IPA alphabet. Take this from a consumer of phonetic wisdom, not from one of its manufacturers.Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-91193074018407526012012-05-06T20:28:56.212+01:002012-05-06T20:28:56.212+01:00David,
I am not sure if you were talking to me o...David, <br /><br />I am not sure if you were talking to me or not, but in any event: an allophone and its perception and the physiological basis of its perception are three different things. Just like a cat, its perception by Mr X and its physiological basis are three different things. <br /><br />In this sense, neither a cat nor an allophone nor a phoneme is anything inside anyone's brain. That was vp's psychologism.<br /><br />Now it is of course possible, but I'd leave this to brain-scientists, that in Mr X's brain there are some permanent structures, after a time, responsible for his perception of the given allophone or of a cat. It would remain to be seen if this structure is typically the same in other people's brains, or if it necessarily the way it is in Mr X's brain.Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-45635684852278575162012-05-06T18:15:40.752+01:002012-05-06T18:15:40.752+01:00I find this all puzzling. Of course ɑː is the most...I find this all puzzling. Of course <b>ɑː</b> is the most frequent, and I'd say the only possible phone in careful and correct speech, in BATH words. For example. And so is <b>əː</b> (I'm ditching the <b>ɜː</b> notation, it makes no sense, schwa can be stressed in proper English) in NURSE words. That is why these symbols were chosen - otherwise we'd have all sorts of silliness and would use Geordie vowels to describe proper RP sounds or something. These symbols simply correspond to the sounds of educated speech and thus the phonemes represents the most frequent and desirable phones.Duchesse de Guermanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12198316853449400624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-77250441815246067872012-05-06T16:30:50.559+01:002012-05-06T16:30:50.559+01:00How can we doubt that there is something concrete ...How can we doubt that there is <b>something</b> concrete within the brain, set of circuit-like configurations that convert the infant's perception and production from a wide undifferentiated spectrum of sound to a repertoire of discrete sounds which can be used in analysing and synthesising the language around them. Other parts of the brain produce and perceive tokens; the phonological part identifies the types.<br /><br />Theory calls out for an inventory of types and process of assigning tokens. Because the job was first tackled by phoneticians, the tokens were such speech sounds as could be precisely observed and calibrated and the tokens were idealisations — total abstractions but defined in essentially the same manner as the concrete observed tokens. <br /><br />But why was the job grabbed phoneticians? Because they were there. And why were they there? Because of a long tradition of thinking in terms of vowels and consonants, albeit with a somewhat muddle-headed grasp of the difference between speech and writing. And yet, and yet…. the alphabet was a brilliant invention. It clarified valid but ill-defined insights into what words were and how they were were built. Phonetics stood on the shoulders of alphabeticisation and saw more far, more clearly.<br /><br />The phoneme as defined by phoneticians is a wonderful heuristic. It allows us to think discuss at the <b>type</b> level in terms that are intuitive and graspable at the <b>token</b> level. <i>Phoneme, allophone, phone</i> — however abstract, however concrete — they address what is accessible directly or indirectly to the conscious mind. <br /><br />But suppose it's not like that. Suppose that the observed tokens and the idealised types operate at the same level and speed as grammar rules. Suppose, that is, that the reality behind <i>phonemes</i> etc is <b>inaccessible</b> to the conscious mind. It's conceivable that, for example, generative phonology is the reality and phonemes are a convenient fiction. Certainly, the brain is fast enough to operate at the level of bundles of features. <br /><br />Not the conscious brain, though. Let's assume for a moment that distinctive features are the <b>real</b> types in principle discoverable by brain science, although not with the technology of the present or, indeed, of ages to come. But even if scientists in the far future identify all the synapse circuitry, we'll still — as now — need a concept that the conscious brain can operate with.<br /><br />We need the concept <i>phoneme</i> in the way we need the concept <i>gene</i>. But I don't believe we impose a structuralist template on genes. We don't read of a closed set comprising all the possible genes. Rather we read of the <b>discovery</b> of sequences within DNA that are inherited intact and are associated with some (also inherited) biological trait.<br /><br />To be fair, phonemes are more of a category and more of a closed set. But is it really necessary to decree that there can be no <b>marginal</b> phonemes, no <b>ambiguity</b> in recognising allophones and assign them to phonemes? I'm sorely tempted to view phonemes and allophones as atheoretical conveniences.<br />• Phoneme: the fictional object allegedly 'signified' by a symbol suitable for transcribing speech in such a way as to eliminate individual speakers' different pronunciation of the same lexis<br />• Allophone: the fictional object allegedly 'signified' by a symbol suitable for transcribing speech in such a way as to identify individual speakers' differences<br /><br />To exaggerate a little, an allophone is a pronunciation that a phonetician has a symbol for. Probably my reluctance to recognise a large number of allophones is due a poor ear and a dislike of exotic symbols.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-4947298631630221552012-05-05T21:11:39.863+01:002012-05-05T21:11:39.863+01:00Cowan is notorious for his various 'essentiall...Cowan is notorious for his various 'essentially' statements, all of which are funny but not all of which are very accurate. Dingoes, as I established this morning by looking at them in the Zoological Garden in Gdańsk, are not very lupine, rather vaguely jackal-like, if anything.<br />Wolves and dogs are technically the same species, canis lupus. But dingoes seem to be closer to dogs than to their wild ancestors, wolves.Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-8059018309567956222012-05-05T10:04:58.447+01:002012-05-05T10:04:58.447+01:00Nevill
Please correct me if I've misunderstoo...Nevill<br /><br />Please correct me if I've misunderstood but I take you to suggest that there are a discrete number of ways of pronouncing the /g/ phoneme in <i>dogs</i>.<br /><br />Well, I'll allow there's variation, but i fail to see why we should recognise only two variants — or any other discrete number.<br /><br />Incidentally, you bring out what is lost when we think in terms of phonemes. The final consonants in <i> dogs</i> and <i>cats</i> are clearly related. The spelling brings out the similarities but phonemic transcription brings out the difference. Morphophonemic analysis offers a solution with the notation <b>{s}</b> but life's too short to run both phonemic and morphophonemic transcription in tandem every time.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.com