tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post6378549288817404736..comments2024-03-17T09:14:13.950+00:00Comments on John Wells’s phonetic blog: derived semivowelsJohn Wellshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-38136971156183331822020-06-13T10:46:22.232+01:002020-06-13T10:46:22.232+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-69569096569063071642012-11-16T09:39:56.161+00:002012-11-16T09:39:56.161+00:00[3rd try] "The argument against this is phono...[3rd try] "The argument against this is phonological. If we add to our phoneme inventory the rising diphthongs in these words [win, yacht etc], we shall have also to add those of weave, wet, whack, suave, war, woman, woo, work and yeast, Yiddish, yet, yam, yarn, yawn, York, yearn, i.e. more than the number of simple vowels we have in our inventory"<br /><br />Another simple bit of (morpho)phonological evidence: the form of the indefinite article before all those "w-initial" and "y-initial" words is "a" not "an", conclusive evidence of the consonantal status of the initial segments. (Same type of argument as is used By Aaron Crane for French.)<br />Adrian Clynes Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01219395991280114659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-7676141827887334892012-11-12T17:17:54.218+00:002012-11-12T17:17:54.218+00:00Comments removed as anonymous/pseudonymous.Comments removed as anonymous/pseudonymous.John Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-14099998678963377662012-11-12T10:37:22.297+00:002012-11-12T10:37:22.297+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01219395991280114659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-71573776358751846372012-11-12T09:59:51.071+00:002012-11-12T09:59:51.071+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01219395991280114659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-11482240020098343682012-10-20T01:14:16.505+01:002012-10-20T01:14:16.505+01:00I agree, and I think there are other good argument...I agree, and I think there are other good arguments in favour of positing an underlying representation for French that distinguishes consonant /w/ from semivowel /w/. Consider a simple consonant-initial noun like “garçon” /gaʁsɔ̃/ “boy”; it has derived forms “le garçon” /ləgaʁsɔ̃/ “the boy”, “les garçons” /legaʁsɔ̃/ “the boys”, “ce garçon” /səgaʁsɔ̃/ “this boy”, and so on. For a vowel-initial noun like “arbre” /aʁbʁ/, the corresponding derived forms are “l’arbre” /laʁbʁ/, “les arbres” /lezaʁbʁ/, and “cet arbre” /sɛtaʁbʁ/. Clearly, in all of these cases, vowel-initial words behave rather differently from consonant-initial words.<br /><br />The French word “oiseau” /wazo/ “bird” behaves like a vowel-initial word on this analysis: the derived forms are “l’oiseau” /lwazo/, “les oiseaux” /lezwazo/, and “cet oiseau” /sɛtwazo/.<br /><br />However, we can also find a French word “watt” /wat/ which behaves like a consonant-initial word, with derived forms “le watt” /ləwat/, “les watts” /lewat/, “ce watt” /səwat/. The difference here seems clear: /w/ can be lexically either a consonant or semivowel in French.<br /><br />I understand that the word “ouate” /wat/ ”cotton wool”, “wad (of cotton)” — a homophone of “watt”, though with different gender — exhibits cross-speaker variance in its treatment as consonant- versus semivowel-initial.<br />Aaron Cranehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13124771258965789061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-48376218670571097542012-10-16T14:57:09.636+01:002012-10-16T14:57:09.636+01:00@Jongseong
I find your analysis excellent.
Jérôm...@Jongseong<br /><br />I find your analysis excellent.<br /><br />Jérôme Poirrier<br />Grenoble, FranceMister_Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00545776778690377562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-34838824623547436292012-10-16T14:56:12.477+01:002012-10-16T14:56:12.477+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mister_Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00545776778690377562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-58764471249554179112012-10-16T03:24:06.694+01:002012-10-16T03:24:06.694+01:00Okay. So /w/ in Scotland is a (non-syllabic) [u] ...Okay. So /w/ in Scotland is a (non-syllabic) [u] just as it is everywhere else in the Anglosphere. At first I thought you had a semivowel /ɥ/ or something, which sounded really interesting so I had to ask about it. It seemed sort of reasonable to me considering that, as you said, /u/ tends to be [y] in Scottish English.Jason Reidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15399373762677357587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-60678933026752658752012-10-16T02:35:51.382+01:002012-10-16T02:35:51.382+01:00If /ju/ and /iu/ are sometimes pronounced differen...If /ju/ and /iu/ are sometimes pronounced differently (as I believe they are in some American dialects), then you should let pronunciation guide you. If they're pronounced the same, using both /ju/ and /iu/ seems like a bad idea. Peter Shorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13823970640202949073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-49990863872557251932012-10-16T01:11:20.010+01:002012-10-16T01:11:20.010+01:00If /ju/ or /iu/ is allowed as a diphthong, then we...If /ju/ or /iu/ is allowed as a diphthong, then we have the dilemma of how words with initial /ju/, such as "uniform", are classified.<br /><br />vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-57684933949822565782012-10-15T22:59:47.893+01:002012-10-15T22:59:47.893+01:00Most French dictionaries always give pronunciation...Most French dictionaries always give pronunciations with a semivowel in words like louer /lwe/, marier /ma.ʁje/, and muer /mɥe/. However, at least some people optionally pronounce these without the compression as /lu.e/, /ma.ʁi.e/, and /my.e/. The same goes for many CwV, CjV, and CɥV combinations such as Rouen /ʁwɑ̃/, lion /ljɔ̃/, and nuage /nɥaʒ/, which can be /ʁu.ɑ̃/, /li.(j)ɔ̃/, and /ny.aʒ/ respectively.<br /><br />Words like bois /bwa/, atelier /a.tə.lje/, and fuite /fɥit/, however, can never be 'uncompressed' in this manner. For these, I think we have to posit an underlying semivowel. But for the cases where there is the option of pronouncing without the compression, I would like to see this made explicit in the transcriptions, perhaps as louer /lu̯e/, marier /ma.ʁi̯e/, etc. or /lu‿e/, /ma.ʁi‿e/, etc.Jongseonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12558136756392729306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-64861389855576801062012-10-15T21:42:48.710+01:002012-10-15T21:42:48.710+01:00Indeed -- silly typo. Of course I meant the follo...Indeed -- silly typo. Of course I meant the following: "There's also the fact that in Scottish English, /u/ tends to be [y], but /w/ is always [u̯], so /w/ cannot be a shortened version of /u/."Thomas Widmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00556092637506486689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-37607889805861192742012-10-15T21:38:47.617+01:002012-10-15T21:38:47.617+01:00I notice all the listed -rj- examples happen to ha...I notice all the listed -rj- examples happen to have -rjVl-; maybe add "erudite" to that list and "materialist" to the other list.<br /><br />Ladefoged makes an exception for ju, allowing it as a diphthong. Aside from history and spelling justifications, it is true that CjV for V other than //u// is rare. Except you still have to allow V = GOOSE, CURE, and schwa (? dunno about STRUT FOOT NURSE and/or FORCE ?) <br />mollymoolyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12318298535149179044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-2015053810950391852012-10-15T20:16:56.272+01:002012-10-15T20:16:56.272+01:00I assume just a slip, intended to say that /w/ is ...I assume just a slip, intended to say that /w/ is always [u̯].Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10627322349797202893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-72962454849072370542012-10-15T19:17:10.568+01:002012-10-15T19:17:10.568+01:00I don't understand. Are you saying that in Sc...I don't understand. Are you saying that in Scottish English, a word like <em>watch</em> could be [yɔʧ]?Jason Reidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15399373762677357587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-2787475345705682612012-10-15T15:20:33.404+01:002012-10-15T15:20:33.404+01:00Re million, and in so far as songs tell us anythin...Re <i>million</i>, and in so far as songs tell us anything, <i>Money for Nothing</i> (by Dire Straits) has <i>millionaire</i> as four syllables.<br /><br />(I won't link to it: unlike the music video I linked to on Friday, what I found on Youtube seems to be an unauthorised copy, and you <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/technology/us-pursues-richard-odwyer-as-intermediary-in-online-piracy.html" rel="nofollow">can't be too careful</a>.)Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10627322349797202893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-32295991175251232102012-10-15T10:45:15.432+01:002012-10-15T10:45:15.432+01:00You're right.You're right. John Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-66270789618685852322012-10-15T09:17:28.164+01:002012-10-15T09:17:28.164+01:00There's also the fact that in Scottish English...There's also the fact that in Scottish English, /u/ tends to be [y], but /w/ is always /u̯/, so /w/ cannot be a shortened version of /u/.Thomas Widmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00556092637506486689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-3608765977277856072012-10-15T09:04:47.333+01:002012-10-15T09:04:47.333+01:00Thanks for the explanation, John. It all makes sen...Thanks for the explanation, John. It all makes sense, except the bit about <em>Daniel</em>. In my copy of LPD3, this has <strong>ˈdæn jəl</strong>, not <strong>ˈdæni‿əl</strong>. Perhaps you were thinking of <em>Nathanael, Nathaniel</em>, which has <strong>nə ˈθæn i‿əl</strong>?Steve Doerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18210787261745134371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-72863599116550389052012-10-15T08:41:38.045+01:002012-10-15T08:41:38.045+01:00Given that we get noticeable devoicing of j after ...<i>Given that we get noticeable devoicing of j after p in words like pure, why do we not get similar devoicing in happier? (Or perhaps we do?)</i><br /><br />Because the /p/ of "pure" is in stressed initial position, and therefore heavily aspirated. vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.com