k-like sounds in English and other European languages
anal...@hotmail.com
European languages (French?).
I would appreciate an explanation of exactly what if any is the
difference between the sounds represented by these alphabets/alphabet
sequences (I know that the presence of q requires rounded lips in
English).
Harlan Messinger
None whatsoever. "Q" doesn't require rounded lips; the sound represented
by "qu" in many English words does, but not in "Iraq", "FAQ", "liquor",
"unique", "plaque", etc.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
They are all the phoneme /k/ realized (pronounced) as [k]. In the case
of <qu>, it usually describes the 2 phoneme sequence /kw/ (pronounced
as[kw], with rounded lips). The realization of phoneme /k/ varies
slightly depending on context; the /k/ in "keep" is realized with an
articulation a little more to the front than the /k/ in "coop" but the
two consonants are not considered different enough to be transcribed
differently in phonetic transcription; both are transcribed as [k].
wugi
And then there is the softening process due to assimilation, eg
breakdown, pron. as breagdown.
It is essential in Dutch where, though such "hard g/soft k" is not a genuine
consonant, it does occur in assimilation:
zakdoek, pron. as "E." zahgdook (handkerchief, pron. as hantkerchief:-)
ik ben, as igben (I am)
guido google wugi
Peter T. Daniels
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> :
>
> > > English has hard c, k, q and ck and I believe cq is present in other
> > > European languages (French?).
>
> > > I would appreciate an explanation of exactly what if any is the
> > > difference between the sounds represented by these alphabets/alphabet
> > > sequences (I know that the presence of q requires rounded lips in
> > > English).
>
> > They are all the phoneme /k/ realized (pronounced) as [k]. In the case
> > of <qu>, it usually describes the 2 phoneme sequence /kw/ (pronounced
> > as[kw], with rounded lips). The realization of phoneme /k/ varies
> > slightly depending on context; the /k/ in "keep" is realized with an
> > articulation a little more to the front than the /k/ in "coop" but the
> > two consonants are not considered different enough to be transcribed
> > differently in phonetic transcription; both are transcribed as [k].
>
> And then there is the softening process due to assimilation, eg
> breakdown, pron. as breagdown.
I take it that happens in your Dutch accent? It doesn't happen in
English.
anal...@hotmail.com
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Thanks.
But as usual, nothing happens in language without a reason.
(1) is c the k-like sound that can undergo palatalization?
(2) is q descended from the IE 'labio-velar' although as you pointed
out , it doesn't necessarily call fo rounded lips.
(3) 'ck' also seems to exist for a reason - it cannot be word initial
and seems to be always word or stem final. hard c without a following
k as word-final seems to be quite rare, but que seems to be able to
occur anywhere.
anal...@hotmail.com
That might explain "quofee" for "coffee" among some less-educated
Americans (mostly in the NorthEast?) - the slightly back-velar (and
mildly aspirated- as one can hear in the Merriam Webster
pronunciation) 'co' in the crisp enunciation of 'coffee' might make
them avoid it in their own speech (sounds 'foreign'), but they take
the educated pronunciation they hear in stride (like the 'axe' sayers
who must be constantly hearing 'ask' in the environment).
anal...@hotmail.com
so are liquor and licker homophones?
and i forgot 'ch' which seems to be essentially a 'k' in 'lichen' .
Harlan Messinger
> On Oct 10, 9:21 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> English has hard c, k, q and ck and I believe cq is present in other
>>> European languages (French?).
>>> I would appreciate an explanation of exactly what if any is the
>>> difference between the sounds represented by these alphabets/alphabet
>>> sequences (I know that the presence of q requires rounded lips in
>>> English).
>> None whatsoever. "Q" doesn't require rounded lips; the sound represented
>> by "qu" in many English words does, but not in "Iraq", "FAQ", "liquor",
>> "unique", "plaque", etc.
>
> Thanks.
>
> But as usual, nothing happens in language without a reason.
As ever, sometimes that reason is happenstance. In this case, though,
it's more than that.
> (1) is c the k-like sound that can undergo palatalization?
>
> (2) is q descended from the IE 'labio-velar' although as you pointed
> out , it doesn't necessarily call fo rounded lips.
>
> (3) 'ck' also seems to exist for a reason - it cannot be word initial
> and seems to be always word or stem final. hard c without a following
> k as word-final seems to be quite rare, but que seems to be able to
> occur anywhere.
The diverse spelling reflect spelling conventions in the various
languages that have contributed to modern English, or conventions used
in transliterating words from them. The letter c was the norm in Old
English as well as in Latin and all the Romance languages, regardless of
whether it was/is "hard" (that is, /k/) or "soft" (/s/, /ts/, /tS/,
/T/). The letter k (unambiguous, unlike c, which is "soft" before e, i,
and y) is used by convention to transliterate the /k/ from Greek,
Hebrew, Arabic, and virtually every other language not using the Roman
alphabet, while "ch" is frequently used to transliterate /x/ and /c/
from other languages (such as Greek chi and Hebrew chet) even when they
become pronounced /k/ in English ("Christmas", "chiropodist"). Native
German words have k almost exclusively, except in the diagraphs "ch" and
"ck" and in the trigraph "sch", and I believe native Dutch has c only in
"ch" and "sch". Yes, in German (or, at least, modern German), "ck" is
only syllable final; I don't know why they don't just double the "k" as
they do with other consonants.
The c from Old English changed to k in positions where it was or came to
be pronounced as /k/ but was or came to be followed by e or i: cyning >
king; cycene > kitchen; cetel > kettle; caegh > key.
I addressed "q" already. It was used with "u" in Latin for the rounded
/k^w/ to which you refer, and "qu" came to be used in English for that,
even being substituted for "cw" in Old English: cwen > queen. In some
cases, like "liquor" or "antique", that quality is gone. In some cases,
q is used to transliterate a sound from another language or is part of
an acronym, as in "Iraq" or "qat" or "FAQ", and is there simply /k/.
Harlan Messinger
Yes.
> and i forgot 'ch' which seems to be essentially a 'k' in 'lichen' .
From Greek chi, transliterated as noted in my previous post.
Harlan Messinger
> On Oct 11, 2:30 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 3:36 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> English has hard c, k, q and ck and I believe cq is present in other
>>> European languages (French?).
>>> I would appreciate an explanation of exactly what if any is the
>>> difference between the sounds represented by these alphabets/alphabet
>>> sequences (I know that the presence of q requires rounded lips in
>>> English).
>> They are all the phoneme /k/ realized (pronounced) as [k]. In the case
>> of <qu>, it usually describes the 2 phoneme sequence /kw/ (pronounced
>> as[kw], with rounded lips). The realization of phoneme /k/ varies
>> slightly depending on context; the /k/ in "keep" is realized with an
>> articulation a little more to the front than the /k/ in "coop" but the
>> two consonants are not considered different enough to be transcribed
>> differently in phonetic transcription; both are transcribed as [k].
>
> That might explain "quofee" for "coffee" among some less-educated
> Americans (mostly in the NorthEast?)
What is your basis for declaring them to be less educated? Do you think
that if you sat in on a masters degree course at SUNY Stony Brook or a
doctoral course at the City University of New York, you wouldn't hear
people talk like this?
> - the slightly back-velar (and
> mildly aspirated- as one can hear in the Merriam Webster
> pronunciation) 'co' in the crisp enunciation of 'coffee' might make
> them avoid it in their own speech (sounds 'foreign'), but they take
> the educated pronunciation they hear in stride (like the 'axe' sayers
> who must be constantly hearing 'ask' in the environment).
People with different accents coexist side by side all over the world.
anal...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow. Thanks a lot.
That brings up an interesting question. Among IE languages that
generated much of their vocabulary after the widespread dissemination
of writing (borrowed along with a written form, innovated from forms
that also had a written representation etc.) - how has that affected
their sounds?
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> > > European languages (French?).
>
> > > I would appreciate an explanation of exactly what if any is the
> > > difference between the sounds represented by these alphabets/alphabet
> > > sequences (I know that the presence of q requires rounded lips in
> > > English).
>
> > They are all the phoneme /k/ realized (pronounced) as [k]. In the case
> > of <qu>, it usually describes the 2 phoneme sequence /kw/ (pronounced
> > as[kw], with rounded lips). The realization of phoneme /k/ varies
> > slightly depending on context; the /k/ in "keep" is realized with an
> > articulation a little more to the front than the /k/ in "coop" but the
> > two consonants are not considered different enough to be transcribed
> > differently in phonetic transcription; both are transcribed as [k].
>
> And then there is the softening process due to assimilation, eg
> breakdown, pron. as breagdown.
That sounds like a Malayali accent. There is no such softening in
English. English has aspiration of [k] in initial (and other?)
contexts.
wugi
> On Oct 11, 3:58 am, "wugi" <b...@scarlet.be> wrote:
> > And then there is the softening process due to assimilation, eg
> > breakdown, pron. as breagdown.
>
> I take it that happens in your Dutch accent? It doesn't happen in
> English.
I half expected such reaction, but even you will admit that the breakdown k
would behave differently from, say, the breakthrough or breakfast or take a
break ones...
> > guido google wugi
ditto
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Oct 11, 2:30 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 3:36 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > English has hard c, k, q and ck and I believe cq is present in other
> > > European languages (French?).
>
> > > I would appreciate an explanation of exactly what if any is the
> > > difference between the sounds represented by these alphabets/alphabet
> > > sequences (I know that the presence of q requires rounded lips in
> > > English).
>
> > They are all the phoneme /k/ realized (pronounced) as [k]. In the case
> > of <qu>, it usually describes the 2 phoneme sequence /kw/ (pronounced
> > as[kw], with rounded lips). The realization of phoneme /k/ varies
> > slightly depending on context; the /k/ in "keep" is realized with an
> > articulation a little more to the front than the /k/ in "coop" but the
> > two consonants are not considered different enough to be transcribed
> > differently in phonetic transcription; both are transcribed as [k].
>
> That might explain "quofee" for "coffee" among some less-educated
> Americans (mostly in the NorthEast?) - the slightly back-velar (and
> mildly aspirated-
BTW, mild aspiration is the standard in high register Malayalam - the
degree of aspiration is more similar to English than to Hindi.
> as one can hear in the Merriam Webster
> pronunciation) 'co' in the crisp enunciation of 'coffee' might make
> them avoid it in their own speech (sounds 'foreign'), but they take
> the educated pronunciation they hear in stride (like the 'axe' sayers
> who must be constantly hearing 'ask' in the environment).
For it to be crisp in the view of a Brit, its first vowel would need
to be as short as the one in "cuff". The first vowel in "coffee" is
longer than that in all US accents, AFAIK. The northeastern [kwO:fI]
has an even longer vowel.
anal...@hotmail.com
Check out the pronunciation at merriam webster - it is basically break
and down said together quickly.
I agree with you - if it doesn't lenit to breagdown then the k will
eventually be gone completely and people will change it to braden.
Karl Reinhardt
but rather an allophone [g] of the phoneme /k/; it is voiced when
immediately before voiced consonants. This information is to be found in
any elementary Dutch book for non-Dutch speakers, usually in a section
called "assimilation of consonants."
Karl
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29fda29a-5e3f-4a24...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 11, 12:58 am, "wugi" <b...@scarlet.be> wrote:
>> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> :
>>"hard g/soft k" is not a genuine
Craoi...@gmail.com
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 2:30 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 10, 3:36 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> English has hard c, k, q and ck and I believe cq is present in other
> >>> European languages (French?).
> >>> I would appreciate an explanation of exactly what if any is the
> >>> difference between the sounds represented by these alphabets/alphabet
> >>> sequences (I know that the presence of q requires rounded lips in
> >>> English).
> >> They are all the phoneme /k/ realized (pronounced) as [k]. In the case
> >> of <qu>, it usually describes the 2 phoneme sequence /kw/ (pronounced
> >> as[kw], with rounded lips). The realization of phoneme /k/ varies
> >> slightly depending on context; the /k/ in "keep" is realized with an
> >> articulation a little more to the front than the /k/ in "coop" but the
> >> two consonants are not considered different enough to be transcribed
> >> differently in phonetic transcription; both are transcribed as [k].
>
> > That might explain "quofee" for "coffee" among some less-educated
> > Americans (mostly in the NorthEast?)
>
> What is your basis for declaring them to be less educated?
I wonder whether analyst has learnt his English as a second language.
In an environment such as India, where English is widely spoken as a
second language, it is a natural approach to perceive all departures
from the normative or standard variety as results of imperfect
acquisition, ergo, lack of education, not as legitimate native
varieties. He might have come into contact with substandard native
English only later in life.
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>> And then there is the softening process due to assimilation, eg
>> breakdown, pron. as breagdown.
>
>I take it that happens in your Dutch accent? It doesn't happen in
>English.
Spot on.
(Everybody knows I don't often agree with PTD, but this time he's
simply very extremely much right, so he deserves the credits for
that.)
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Peter T. Daniels
> On Oct 11, 10:56 am, Harlan Messinger
> Wow. Thanks a lot.
Were you really incapable of reading a history of the English language
all by yourself?
> That brings up an interesting question. Among IE languages that
> generated much of their vocabulary after the widespread dissemination
> of writing
Which would those be?
What does "generated much of their vocabulary" mean?
Ruud Harmsen
<realema...@rudhar.com.invalid>: in sci.lang:
Or as we say in Dutch:
he has ordinary equal
(hij heeft gewoon gelijk)
Peter T. Daniels
Why? How often does regressive assimilation cross a syllable boundary?
wugi
> >
> > > On Oct 11, 3:58 am, "wugi" <b...@scarlet.be> wrote:
> > > > And then there is the softening process due to assimilation, eg
> > > > breakdown, pron. as breagdown.
> >
> > > I take it that happens in your Dutch accent? It doesn't happen in
> > > English.
... it-that .... it-doesn't ....
> > I half expected such reaction, but even you will admit that the
breakdown k
> > would behave differently from, say, the breakthrough or breakfast or
take a
> > break ones...
>
> Why? How often does regressive assimilation cross a syllable boundary?
If you'll tell me nothing at all modulates at the above syllable contacts,
well, what one doesn't want to hear one won't...
guido google wugi
anal...@hotmail.com
<some cuntiness> - under the illusion that it is worth bothering with.
Go away cunt-boy - Harlan and I are having a conversation.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> What the writer mean to say is that "hard g/soft k" is not a phoneme /g/,
> but rather an allophone [g] of the phoneme /k/; it is voiced when
> immediately before voiced consonants. This information is to be found in
> any elementary Dutch book for non-Dutch speakers, usually in a section
> called "assimilation of consonants."
Ah! I thought he was talking about English pronunciation. Is "busdach"
pronounced in German with [s] or [z]?
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Peter T. Daniels
"it that" probably has the t moving forward to dental. "it doesn't"
certainly doesn't turn into "iddoesn't." It likely becomes
"i'doesn't" (with glottal).
Joachim Pense
>
> Ah! I thought he was talking about English pronunciation. Is "busdach"
> pronounced in German with [s] or [z]?
With [s].
Joachim
anal...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
fuhgeddaboudit Petey - you are completely wrong about this.
"breakdown" with a k-sound will break down - it is unstable. If
someone were to say breagdown or iddoes in everyday speech I doubt
that anybody would find it noticeable.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Oct 12, 12:06 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 5:20 pm, "wugi" <b...@scarlet.be> wrote:
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" :
> > > > > > On Oct 11, 3:58 am, "wugi" <b...@scarlet.be> wrote:
> > > > > > > And then there is the softening process due to assimilation, eg
> > > > > > > breakdown, pron. as breagdown.
>
> > > > > > I take it that happens in your Dutch accent? It doesn't happen in
> > > > > > English.
>
> > > ... it-that .... it-doesn't ....
>
> > > > > I half expected such reaction, but even you will admit that the
> > > breakdown k
> > > > > would behave differently from, say, the breakthrough or breakfast or
> > > take a
> > > > > break ones...
>
> > > > Why? How often does regressive assimilation cross a syllable boundary?
>
> > > If you'll tell me nothing at all modulates at the above syllable contacts,
> > > well, what one doesn't want to hear one won't...
>
> > "it that" probably has the t moving forward to dental. "it doesn't"
> > certainly doesn't turn into "iddoesn't." It likely becomes
> > "i'doesn't" (with glottal).-
> fuhgeddaboudit Petey - you are completely wrong about this.
> "breakdown" with a k-sound will break down - it is unstable. If
> someone were to say breagdown or iddoes in everyday speech I doubt
> that anybody would find it noticeable.
You not only need to learn something about linguistics, you also need
to learn something about observing the real world.
Nathan Sanders
<3cf71891-3aaa-4387...@m74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 12, 12:06 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 5:20 pm, "wugi" <b...@scarlet.be> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" :
> >
> > > > > > On Oct 11, 3:58 am, "wugi" <b...@scarlet.be> wrote:
> > > > > > > And then there is the softening process due to assimilation, eg
> > > > > > > breakdown, pron. as breagdown.
> >
> > > > > > I take it that happens in your Dutch accent? It doesn't happen in
> > > > > > English.
> >
> > > ... it-that .... it-doesn't ....
> >
> > > > > I half expected such reaction, but even you will admit that the
> > > breakdown k
> > > > > would behave differently from, say, the breakthrough or breakfast or
> > > take a
> > > > > break ones...
> >
> > > > Why? How often does regressive assimilation cross a syllable boundary?
> >
> > > If you'll tell me nothing at all modulates at the above syllable contacts,
> > > well, what one doesn't want to hear one won't...
> >
> > "it that" probably has the t moving forward to dental. "it doesn't"
> > certainly doesn't turn into "iddoesn't." It likely becomes
> > "i'doesn't" (with glottal).
>
> fuhgeddaboudit Petey - you are completely wrong about this.
> "breakdown" with a k-sound will break down - it is unstable. If
> someone were to say breagdown or iddoes in everyday speech I doubt
> that anybody would find it noticeable.
A voiceless coda, like the [k] in "breakdown" is typically
glottalized, while a voiced coda is never glottalized.
Furthermore, a voiced coda causes the preceding vowel to be much
longer than a vowel preceding a voiceless coda. The difference in
vowel length is so noticeable to English speakers that it allows for
distinguishing between words like "beat" and "bead" in whispered
(unvoiced) speech.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>fuhgeddaboudit Petey - you are completely wrong about this.
>"breakdown" with a k-sound will break down - it is unstable. If
>someone were to say breagdown or iddoes in everyday speech I doubt
>that anybody would find it noticeable.
I would notice: because it is such a conspicuos give-away of a Dutch
accent.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com (in sci.lang):
> > Ah! I thought he was talking about English pronunciation. Is "busdach"
> > pronounced in German with [s] or [z]?
>
> With [s].
Well, then, if English examples won't suffice to explain matters to
Wugi, he might be able to appreciate "busdach" as an example of an
absence of regressive assimilation of voicing.
Joachim Pense
It would be real effort for me to pronounce "Busdach" with a voiced [z].
Joachim
Peter T. Daniels
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com (in sci.lang):
>
> > On Oct 11, 9:52 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> >> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com (in sci.lang):
> >> > Ah! I thought he was talking about English pronunciation. Is "busdach"
> >> > pronounced in German with [s] or [z]?
>
> >> With [s].
>
> > Well, then, if English examples won't suffice to explain matters to
> > Wugi, he might be able to appreciate "busdach" as an example of an
> > absence of regressive assimilation of voicing.
>
> It would be real effort for me to pronounce "Busdach" with a voiced [z].
Because it's syllable-final.
But in English, where buzz exists alongside bus, "busdrop," maybe the
place where a bunch of schoolkids are dropped off for their parents to
take them home, would never become buzdrop.
anal...@hotmail.com
> In article
> <3cf71891-3aaa-4387-a926-c686d9ddc...@m74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you look at the following consonant clusters in English, it seems
to me that
(1) kt
(2) kd
(3) gt
(4) gd
Only (1) Where k can stand for (c, ck etc.) can occur in a single word
- all the others can only occur in compound words or at word
boundaries.
At first I thought kd would be difficult to maintain in speech, but
then we have smackdown and back down, attack dog etc. where the 'k'
is easy to maintain (and substituting g would stand out as poor speech
pretty obviously) and sure enough they are spelt with 'ck'.
So perhaps the 'ck' versus 'k' in spelling is not arbitrary - there
might be some phonology behind it.
anal...@hotmail.com
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If you look at the following consonant clusters in English, it seems
> to me that
>
> (1) kt
> (2) kd
> (3) gt
> (4) gd
>
> Only (1) Where k can stand for (c, ck etc.) can occur in a single word
> - all the others can only occur in compound words or at word
> boundaries.
>
> At first I thought kd would be difficult to maintain in speech, but
> then we have smackdown and back down, attack dog etc. where the 'k'
> is easy to maintain (and substituting g would stand out as poor speech
> pretty obviously) and sure enough they are spelt with 'ck'.
>
> So perhaps the 'ck' versus 'k' in spelling is not arbitrary - there
>
> - Show quoted text -
'weekday' seems to be a 50-50 case - 'k' seems more natural, but if
you say 'weegday' i doubt that it will stand out in any way.
Craoi...@gmail.com
You seem to be exceedingly interested in the word "cunt". You probably
don't see much of the real thing, if you need to speak about it so
much.
Christian Weisgerber
> If you look at the following consonant clusters in English, it seems
> to me that
>
> (1) kt
> (2) kd
> (3) gt
> (4) gd
>
> Only (1) Where k can stand for (c, ck etc.) can occur in a single word
Both /kt/ and /gd/ appear word-finally in -ed verb forms, e.g.
"packed" and "bugged".
> At first I thought kd would be difficult to maintain in speech, but
> then we have smackdown and back down, attack dog etc. where the 'k'
> is easy to maintain (and substituting g would stand out as poor speech
> pretty obviously) and sure enough they are spelt with 'ck'.
book dealer
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Oct 12, 11:09 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
> If you look at the following consonant clusters in English, it seems
> to me that
>
> (1) kt
> (2) kd
> (3) gt
> (4) gd
>
> Only (1) Where k can stand for (c, ck etc.) can occur in a single word
> - all the others
> can only occur in compound words or at word boundaries.
A shorter way to put it is "can appear only at morpheme boundaries".
> So perhaps the 'ck' versus 'k' in spelling is not arbitrary - there
> might be some phonology behind it.
There is. <ck> shortens the vowel before it. Consider <baked> vs.
<backed>.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> A voiceless coda, like the [k] in "breakdown" is typically
> glottalized, while a voiced coda is never glottalized.
A glottalized k is transcribed as [?k] on page 2 of this:
http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/HPr_01_Prelude.pdf
... which is one chapter of this "Handbook of Phonetics"
http://venus.unive.it/canipa/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=pdf
Nathan Sanders
<d1fca8d2-3b81-4b29...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 12, 11:09 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <3cf71891-3aaa-4387-a926-c686d9ddc...@m74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > "breakdown" with a k-sound will break down - it is unstable. If
> > > someone were to say breagdown or iddoes in everyday speech I doubt
> > > that anybody would find it noticeable.
> >
> > A voiceless coda, like the [k] in "breakdown" is typically
> > glottalized, while a voiced coda is never glottalized.
> >
> > Furthermore, a voiced coda causes the preceding vowel to be much
> > longer than a vowel preceding a voiceless coda. The difference in
> > vowel length is so noticeable to English speakers that it allows for
> > distinguishing between words like "beat" and "bead" in whispered
> > (unvoiced) speech.
>
> If you look at the following consonant clusters in English, it seems
> to me that
>
> (1) kt
> (2) kd
> (3) gt
> (4) gd
>
> Only (1) Where k can stand for (c, ck etc.) can occur in a single word
> - all the others can only occur in compound words or at word
> boundaries.
(2) anecdote
(4) amygdala
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
In my first year in the US, an American told me that I'd do well to
switch to [k&nt] because my [kAnt] sounded too much like [kVnt].
Nathan Sanders
<dd8e5ff8-73aa-4ce4...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
> 'weekday' seems to be a 50-50 case - 'k' seems more natural, but if
> you say 'weegday' i doubt that it will stand out in any way.
Yes it would. The lack of glottalization and the longer vowel would
be noticeable.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > 'weekday' seems to be a 50-50 case - 'k' seems more natural, but if
> > you say 'weegday' i doubt that it will stand out in any way.
>
> Yes it would. The lack of glottalization and the longer vowel would
> be noticeable.
In "wick" vs. "wig", is voicing the ONLY difference?
Brian M. Scott
"ranjit_...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote
in
<news:ecbdf218-3dcf-428f...@31g2000prz.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
No. As Nathan has mentioned at least twice in this thread,
the vowel preceding the voiced stop is longer.
Brian
anal...@hotmail.com
anecdote is a borrowed compound word and "anegdote" in everyday speech
wouldn't be noticeable, IMO.
an- "not" + ekdotos "published," from ek- "out" + didonai "to
give" (see date (1)). Procopius' 6c. Anecdota, unpublished memoirs
amygdala doesn't have the unvoiced-voiced apposition conflict and
amazingly appears not to be a compound word.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > In "wick" vs. "wig", is voicing the ONLY difference?
>
> No. As Nathan has mentioned at least twice in this thread,
> the vowel preceding the voiced stop is longer.
That was the vowel [i]. How about [@]? Does it come in different
lengths?
Brian M. Scott
"ranjit_...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote
in
<news:fe34a455-e9e4-41c6...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
What is the relevance? The vowel in <wick> and <wig> is
neither [i] nor [@]. (It's /I/, with a non-phonemic length
distinction.)
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<anal...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<news:6661c14a-78f3-4284...@u75g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
>> (2) anecdote
>> (4) amygdala
> anecdote is a borrowed compound word
<Anecdote> is synchronically a perfectly ordinary English
word.
> and "anegdote" in everyday speech wouldn't be noticeable,
> IMO.
Your opinion is wrong.
> an- "not" + ekdotos "published," from ek- "out" + didonai
> "to give" (see date (1)). Procopius' 6c. Anecdota,
> unpublished memoirs
Synchronically irrelevant.
> amygdala doesn't have the unvoiced-voiced apposition
So?
> conflict and amazingly appears not to be a compound word.
Thereby refuting your conjecture.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:01:35 -0700 (PDT),
> in
> <news:fe34a455-e9e4-41c6...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
> > On Oct 12, 5:28 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> >> "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >>> In "wick" vs. "wig", is voicing the ONLY difference?
> >> No. As Nathan has mentioned at least twice in this thread,
> >> the vowel preceding the voiced stop is longer.
> > That was the vowel [i]. How about [@]? Does it come in different
> > lengths?
>
> What is the relevance?
Does every vowel, including [@] come with such different non-phomemic
length distinctions?
anal...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:50:05 -0700 (PDT),
no. 'c' and 'd' cannot occur next to each other without some kind of
morpheme boundary separating them, although the boundary may be hidden
in the past in another language.
>
> > amygdala doesn't have the unvoiced-voiced apposition
>
> So?
>
> > conflict and amazingly appears not to be a compound word.
>
> Thereby refuting your conjecture.- Hide quoted text -
nope. Thats just a scientifc-English term borrowed from Greek via
Latin. When it is used as a synonym for almond in everyday English,
we can talk about it.
Brian M. Scott
<nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
<news:nsanders-4A232D...@AToulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanadoo.fr>
in sci.lang:
> In article
> <d1fca8d2-3b81-4b29...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
[...]
>> If you look at the following consonant clusters in English, it seems
>> to me that
>> (1) kt
>> (2) kd
>> (3) gt
>> (4) gd
>> Only (1) Where k can stand for (c, ck etc.) can occur in a single word
>> - all the others can only occur in compound words or at word
>> boundaries.
> (2) anecdote
Too tame. <g> Ecdysiast.
> (4) amygdala
Brian
anal...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:16:36 -0400, Nathan Sanders
> <news:nsanders-4A232D...@AToulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanadoo.fr>
> in sci.lang:
>
> > In article
> > analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> If you look at the following consonant clusters in English, it seems
> >> to me that
> >> (1) kt
> >> (2) kd
> >> (3) gt
> >> (4) gd
> >> Only (1) Where k can stand for (c, ck etc.) can occur in a single word
> >> - all the others can only occur in compound words or at word
> >> boundaries.
> > (2) anecdote
>
> Too tame. <g> Ecdysiast.
tame also - not a counterexample (a morpheme boundary separates the c
and d).
ex- + dyo
>
> > (4) amygdala
>
> Brian
Brian M. Scott
<anal...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<news:45b6da02-4fef-4a89...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
>> [...]
>>> (2) anecdote
>> Too tame. <g> Ecdysiast.
Not in English.
[...]
Peter T. Daniels
Brian M. Scott
"ranjit_...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote
in
<news:23fe1d2f-5112-47db...@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> Does every vowel, including [@] come with such different
> non-phomemic length distinctions?
So far as I know, yes. If I'm wrong, Nathan will know.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
Oh, just shut up.
You are too abysmally ignorant for anyone to bother trying to talk to
you.
"Anecdote" is a single morpheme in English known to everyone, and its
history is known to almost no one.
> > > amygdala doesn't have the unvoiced-voiced apposition
>
> > So?
>
> > > conflict and amazingly appears not to be a compound word.
>
> > Thereby refuting your conjecture.- Hide quoted text -
>
> nope. Thats just a scientifc-English term borrowed from Greek via
> Latin. When it is used as a synonym for almond in everyday English,
> we can talk about it.
Nothing to do with almonds. It's a structure in the brain that may
have been named, a thousand or two years ago, for its appearance.
anal...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:00:22 -0700 (PDT),
That is very stupid.
It is also dishonest to snip the posted morpheme boundary in the
original word this word is derived from.
>
> [...]- Hide quoted text -
Brian M. Scott
<anal...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<news:70315e5c-2515-44aa...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> (2) anecdote
>>>> Too tame. <g> Ecdysiast.
>> Not in English.
> That is very stupid.
It's a fact, whether you like it or not. For a real example
of extreme stupidity, look in a mirror.
[...]
anal...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:20:57 -0700 (PDT),
Whether it is a fact or not - asserting it is stupid. We are trying
to learn here and not compete over who can be stupider fuck than petey-
boy or some such thing.
No words innovated within English can have the cd cluster in a single
morpheme.
If a word in English does have the cluster and the morpheme boundary
separating them cannot be discerned in English, it would be found in
the original word the English word came from.
OK?
In case you are going to continue in the farting in public vein - try
to come up with wittier insults ("im not stupid, YOU are" - sheesh.)
and don't snip dishonestly.
whether you like it or not. For a real example
> of extreme stupidity, look in a mirror.
>
Nathan Sanders
<6661c14a-78f3-4284...@u75g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
> anecdote is a borrowed
That's a new requirement that you didn't specify before. Why the
moved goalpost?
> compound word
I don't think "compound word" means what you want it to mean.
"Anecdote" is not a compound word, because, at the very least, "anec"
is not a word.
("Dote" does happen to be a word, but the word "dote" has nothing to
do with "anecdote".)
> and "anegdote" in everyday speech
> wouldn't be noticeable, IMO.
Your opinion has no bearing on reality, which is that native English
speakers would notice.
Nathan Sanders
<23fe1d2f-5112-47db...@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
"ranjit_...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 6:35 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:01:35 -0700 (PDT),
> > "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > in
> > <news:fe34a455-e9e4-41c6...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
> > in sci.lang:
> >
> > > On Oct 12, 5:28 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> > >> "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > >>> In "wick" vs. "wig", is voicing the ONLY difference?
> > >> No. As Nathan has mentioned at least twice in this thread,
> > >> the vowel preceding the voiced stop is longer.
> > > That was the vowel [i]. How about [@]? Does it come in different
> > > lengths?
> >
> > What is the relevance?
>
> Does every vowel, including [@] come with such different non-phomemic
> length distinctions?
The allophonic lengthening is definitely triggered in stressed
syllables. In unstressed syllables, I think the lengthening still
occurs, but not to the same extent: "duchess" and "Dutch's" seem to me
to differ in more than just voicing of the final consonant, but I'd
want to do see some phonetic measurements to verify statistical
significance.
Paul J Kriha
> anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 9:21 pm, Harlan Messinger
>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> English has hard c, k, q and ck and I believe cq is present in other
>>>> European languages (French?).
>>>> I would appreciate an explanation of exactly what if any is the
>>>> difference between the sounds represented by these alphabets/alphabet
>>>> sequences (I know that the presence of q requires rounded lips in
>>>> English).
>>> None whatsoever. "Q" doesn't require rounded lips; the sound represented
>>> by "qu" in many English words does, but not in "Iraq", "FAQ", "liquor",
>>> "unique", "plaque", etc.
>>
>> so are liquor and licker homophones?
> Yes.
A little purple joke I heard recently demonstrated that quite well:
A: How do you handle liquor these days, Joane?
J: The same way as before, I hold him by his ears.
>> and i forgot 'ch' which seems to be essentially a 'k' in 'lichen' .
>
> From Greek chi, transliterated as noted in my previous post.
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>On Oct 12, 1:38 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com (in sci.lang):
>>
>> > On Oct 11, 9:52 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>> >> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com (in sci.lang):
>> >> > Ah! I thought he was talking about English pronunciation. Is "busdach"
>> >> > pronounced in German with [s] or [z]?
>>
>> >> With [s].
>>
>> > Well, then, if English examples won't suffice to explain matters to
>> > Wugi, he might be able to appreciate "busdach" as an example of an
>> > absence of regressive assimilation of voicing.
>>
>> It would be real effort for me to pronounce "Busdach" with a voiced [z].
>
>Because it's syllable-final.
In Dutch, the s's in "Dat iz de reden", "Dat is 't" and "busdak" are
syllable-final too, but it is not difficult to pronounce them as [z],
on the contrary, it is difficult (for most native speakers) to
pronounce them as [s].
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com>: in sci.lang:
No, in all IE languages that I've heard of, voiced vs. voiceless is
alwaus accompanied with lax s. tense.
No, Danish is probably an exception. And Korean, but that isn't IE.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
No, but I did have occasion to say "can't".
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
> > analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Oct 10, 9:21 pm, Harlan Messinger
> >> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>> English has hard c, k, q and ck and I believe cq is present in other
> >>>> European languages (French?).
> >>>> I would appreciate an explanation of exactly what if any is the
> >>>> difference between the sounds represented by these alphabets/alphabet
> >>>> sequences (I know that the presence of q requires rounded lips in
> >>>> English).
> >>> None whatsoever. "Q" doesn't require rounded lips; the sound represented
> >>> by "qu" in many English words does, but not in "Iraq", "FAQ", "liquor",
> >>> "unique", "plaque", etc.
>
> >> so are liquor and licker homophones?
> > Yes.
>
> A little purple joke I heard recently demonstrated that quite well:
>
> A: How do you handle liquor these days, Joane?
> J: The same way as before, I hold him by his ears.
You'll find that it actually works if you ask, "How do you handle your
liquor these days?"
Peter T. Daniels
> On Oct 12, 11:41 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:20:57 -0700 (PDT),
> > <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote in
><news:70315e5c-2515-44aa...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
> > in sci.lang:
> > > On Oct 12, 11:04 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:00:22 -0700 (PDT),
> > >> <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<news:
45b6da02-4fef-4a89...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
> > >> in sci.lang:
> > >>> On Oct 12, 10:49 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> > >>>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:16:36 -0400, Nathan Sanders
> > >>>> <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote in
<news:nsanders-4A232D.
Whether you like it or not, whether it interferes with some fantasy
you have about Sanskrit or not, once a word has been borrowed into a
language, it is part of that language, and its prior history is not
available to the speakers of the language.
> If a word in English does have the cluster and the morpheme boundary
> separating them cannot be discerned in English, it would be found in
> the original word the English word came from.
>
> OK?
No, not OK. Just stupid.
> In case you are going to continue in the farting in public vein - try
> to come up with wittier insults ("im not stupid, YOU are" - sheesh.)
> and don't snip dishonestly.
He's not insulting you, he's telling the truth about you.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:52:17 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
Thta would indicate that Dutch isn't German.
Peter T. Daniels
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 8:14 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 7:21 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 12, 12:20 pm, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 12, 6:40 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Go away cunt-boy - Harlan and I are having a conversation.
> > > > You seem to be exceedingly interested in the word "cunt". You probably
> > > > don't see much of the real thing, if you need to speak about it so
> > > > much.
>
> > > In my first year in the US, an American told me that I'd do well to
> > > switch to [k&nt] because my [kAnt] sounded too much like [kVnt].
>
> > Did you have much occasion to speak of Kant?
>
> No, but I did have occasion to say "can't".
If you pronounced "can't" in the British way, then you merely sounded
affected.
If you pronounced it like "cunt," then you merely sounded wrong.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
I didn't.
Peter T. Daniels
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 5:05 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 13, 4:53 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 12, 8:14 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 12, 7:21 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 12, 12:20 pm, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 12, 6:40 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > Go away cunt-boy - Harlan and I are having a conversation.
> > > > > > You seem to be exceedingly interested in the word "cunt". You probably
> > > > > > don't see much of the real thing, if you need to speak about it so
> > > > > > much.
>
> > > > > In my first year in the US, an American told me that I'd do well to
> > > > > switch to [k&nt] because my [kAnt] sounded too much like [kVnt].
>
> > > > Did you have much occasion to speak of Kant?
>
> > > No, but I did have occasion to say "can't".
>
> > If you pronounced "can't" in the British way, then you merely sounded
> > affected.
>
> > If you pronounced it like "cunt,"
>
> I didn't.
So "An American" was lying to you?
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>> In Dutch, the s's in "Dat iz de reden", "Dat is 't" and "busdak" are
>> syllable-final too, but it is not difficult to pronounce them as [z],
>> on the contrary, it is difficult (for most native speakers) to
>> pronounce them as [s].
>
>That would indicate that Dutch isn't German.
Interesting question. I've been wondering about that for a long time
myself. Perhaps a decision should be expected any day now.
Brian M. Scott
<nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
<news:nsanders-DF0A71...@AToulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanadoo.fr>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> In unstressed syllables, I think the lengthening still
> occurs, but not to the same extent: "duchess" and
> "Dutch's" seem to me to differ in more than just voicing
> of the final consonant, but I'd want to do see some
> phonetic measurements to verify statistical
> significance.
That would be interesting. I *think* that the consonant is
longer in 'Dutch's', at least for me. (The vowel is also
slightly higher, but that's a consistent feature of my
pronunciation of the plural morpheme.)
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<anal...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<news:16fa4bcc-fa5e-41e8...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> (2) anecdote
>>>>>> Too tame. <g> Ecdysiast.
>>>> Not in English.
>>> That is very stupid.
>> It's a fact,
You certainly aren't. You just admitted as much: you don't
care about facts.
[...]
> No words innovated within English can have the cd cluster
> in a single morpheme.
You haven't defined what you mean -- if anything -- by
'innovated in English', and whatever your definition is --
if you even have one -- this is not your original claim.
> If a word in English does have the cluster and the
> morpheme boundary separating them cannot be discerned in
> English,
... then it is a counterexample to your original claim.
> it would be found in the original word the English word
> came from.
> OK?
Irrelevant.
> In case you are going to continue in the farting in public
> vein - try to come up with wittier insults ("im not
> stupid, YOU are" - sheesh.)
Why? You're an unpleasant jackass who's not worth the
effort. You're rarely worth the effort of any response,
unless I'm terminally bored.
> and don't snip dishonestly.
I didn't. I never do. I snipped material that was no
longer relevant.
Harlan Messinger
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>> anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 9:21 pm, Harlan Messinger
>>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> English has hard c, k, q and ck and I believe cq is present in other
>>>>> European languages (French?).
>>>>> I would appreciate an explanation of exactly what if any is the
>>>>> difference between the sounds represented by these alphabets/alphabet
>>>>> sequences (I know that the presence of q requires rounded lips in
>>>>> English).
>>>> None whatsoever. "Q" doesn't require rounded lips; the sound represented
>>>> by "qu" in many English words does, but not in "Iraq", "FAQ", "liquor",
>>>> "unique", "plaque", etc.
>>> so are liquor and licker homophones?
>> Yes.
>
> A little purple joke I heard recently demonstrated that quite well:
>
> A: How do you handle liquor these days, Joane?
> J: The same way as before, I hold him by his ears.
Sign at the bar with poker games in the back room: "Liquor in the front,
poker in the rear."
Harlan Messinger
> On Oct 12, 9:38 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:50:05 -0700 (PDT),
>> <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> <news:6661c14a-78f3-4284...@u75g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
>> in sci.lang:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 12, 7:16 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <d1fca8d2-3b81-4b29-b0ec-4c3e962d8...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> In article <3cf71891-3aaa-4387-a926-c686d9ddc...@m74g200
>>>>>> 0hsh.googlegroups.com>, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> "breakdown" with a k-sound will break down - it is
>>>>>>> unstable. If someone were to say breagdown or iddoes
>>>>>>> in everyday speech I doubt that anybody would find it
>>>>>>> noticeable.
>>>>>> A voiceless coda, like the [k] in "breakdown" is
>>>>>> typically glottalized, while a voiced coda is never
>>>>>> glottalized.
>>>>>> Furthermore, a voiced coda causes the preceding vowel
>>>>>> to be much longer than a vowel preceding a voiceless
>>>>>> coda. The difference in vowel length is so noticeable
>>>>>> to English speakers that it allows for distinguishing
>>>>>> between words like "beat" and "bead" in whispered
>>>>>> (unvoiced) speech.
>>>>> English, it seems to me that
>>>>> (1) kt
>>>>> (2) kd
>>>>> (3) gt
>>>>> (4) gd
>>>>> Only (1) Where k can stand for (c, ck etc.) can occur in
>>>>> a single word - all the others can only occur in
>>>>> compound words or at word boundaries.
>>>> (2) anecdote
>>> anecdote is a borrowed compound word
>> <Anecdote> is synchronically a perfectly ordinary English
>> word.
>>
>>> IMO.
>>
>>> an- "not" + ekdotos "published," from ek- "out" + didonai
>>> "to give" (see date (1)). Procopius' 6c. Anecdota,
>>> unpublished memoirs
>> Synchronically irrelevant.
>
> no. 'c' and 'd' cannot occur next to each other without some kind of
> morpheme boundary separating them, although the boundary may be hidden
> in the past in another language.
There is no morpheme boundary separating them. Speakers of modern
English don't analyze the word according to its etymology, of which they
are completely unaware.
Harlan Messinger
> On Oct 12, 12:06 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 5:20 pm, "wugi" <b...@scarlet.be> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Peter T. Daniels" :
>>>>>> On Oct 11, 3:58 am, "wugi" <b...@scarlet.be> wrote:
>>>>>>> And then there is the softening process due to assimilation, eg
>>>>>>> breakdown, pron. as breagdown.
>>>>>> I take it that happens in your Dutch accent? It doesn't happen in
>>>>>> English.
>>> ... it-that .... it-doesn't ....
>>>>> I half expected such reaction, but even you will admit that the
>>> breakdown k
>>>>> would behave differently from, say, the breakthrough or breakfast or
>>> take a
>>>>> break ones...
>>>> Why? How often does regressive assimilation cross a syllable boundary?
>>> If you'll tell me nothing at all modulates at the above syllable contacts,
>>> well, what one doesn't want to hear one won't...
>> "it that" probably has the t moving forward to dental. "it doesn't"
>> certainly doesn't turn into "iddoesn't." It likely becomes
>> "i'doesn't" (with glottal).- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> "breakdown" with a k-sound will break down - it is unstable. If
> someone were to say breagdown or iddoes in everyday speech I doubt
> that anybody would find it noticeable.
Nathan has amply addressed your mistaken notion that no one would
notice. I'd just like to point out that even if no would notice one
person pronouncing it that way, it wouldn't mean that everyone is going
to pronounce it that way some day.
Christian Weisgerber
> A voiceless coda, like the [k] in "breakdown" is typically
> glottalized, while a voiced coda is never glottalized.
>
> Furthermore, a voiced coda causes the preceding vowel to be much
> longer than a vowel preceding a voiceless coda. The difference in
> vowel length is so noticeable to English speakers that it allows for
> distinguishing between words like "beat" and "bead" in whispered
> (unvoiced) speech.
Does this also apply if the coda is a cluster with a sonorant?
felt - felled
heart - hard
hence - hens
forts - fords (And just how much voicing do
gulps - bulbs the obstruents have here?)
How about unstressed syllables? I'm having a lot of trouble
differentiating reverend/reverent.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
anal...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:20:19 -0700 (PDT),
Nope. You are unable to comprehend simple English. If you asserted
(factually) the price of tea in China that wouldn't be relevant here.
>
> [...]
>
> > No words innovated within English can have the cd cluster
> > in a single morpheme.
>
> You haven't defined what you mean -- if anything -- by
> 'innovated in English', and whatever your definition is --
> if you even have one -- this is not your original claim.
So what?
You snipped dishonestly again and misquoted what I wrote. "Innovated
within English" ought to be clear to anybody with an IQ exceeding
single digits - in this case I think you are only being dishonest and
not stupid by pretending not to understand the notion.
>
> > If a word in English does have the cluster and the
> > morpheme boundary separating them cannot be discerned in
> > English,
>
> ... then it is a counterexample to your original claim.
>
> > it would be found in the original word the English word
> > came from.
> > OK?
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> > In case you are going to continue in the farting in public
> > vein - try to come up with wittier insults ("im not
> > stupid, YOU are" - sheesh.)
>
> Why? You're an unpleasant jackass who's not worth the
> effort. You're rarely worth the effort of any response,
> unless I'm terminally bored.
God you are so pitifully transparent - "I wasn't really trying".
>
> > and don't snip dishonestly.
>
> I didn't. I never do. I snipped material that was no
> longer relevant.- Hide quoted text -
You do and did in this post also.
anal...@hotmail.com
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't take everything posters write here as facts - unless you or
Nathan can cite actual studies supporting the assertions that have
been made it means very little to me.
anal...@hotmail.com
> On Oct 13, 12:20 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:> On Oct 12, 11:41 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:20:57 -0700 (PDT),
> > > <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> ><news:70315e5c-2515-44aa...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
> > > in sci.lang:
> > > > On Oct 12, 11:04 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:00:22 -0700 (PDT),
> > > >> <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>
> <news:
> > > >>> On Oct 12, 10:49 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> > > >>>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:16:36 -0400, Nathan Sanders
> > > >>>> <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote in
>
> <news:nsanders-4A232D.
yeah right. English speakers coined "telephone" and per the diktat of
the all-knowing peteyboy dutifully forgot what 'tele" means and by a
miraculous coincidence coined "television" afterwards with the same
meaning.
Your assertion maybe true for borrowings from unrelated languages,
but the root words/morphemes of closely related languages from which
borrowings/coinages have been made can, in many cases, make their
original morphogical structure felt in the borrowing language.
Your ignorance is sometimes shocking, for an alleged professional in
the field.
>
> > If a word in English does have the cluster and the morpheme boundary
> > separating them cannot be discerned in English, it would be found in
> > the original word the English word came from.
>
> > OK?
>
> No, not OK. Just stupid.
Jealousy at someone else's creativity can be useful, but apparently
not in your case.
>
> > In case you are going to continue in the farting in public vein - try
> > to come up with wittier insults ("im not stupid, YOU are" - sheesh.)
> > and don't snip dishonestly.
>
> He's not insulting you, he's telling the truth about you.
can't your buddy fight his battles himself?
>
Harlan Messinger
Which assertions are you talking about? Your remark doesn't seem to
respond to what I said to you.
Since you perpetually make preposterous remarks without citing actual
studies to support them, I guess you must already understand that they
mean very little to anybody here, so perhaps we can stop wasting our
time explaining to you how little your opinions mean.
anal...@hotmail.com
what native speakers would and would not notice in everyday speech.
Richard Herring
<82064dba-29ab-4003...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
anal...@hotmail.com writes
>On Oct 13, 8:03 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Whether you like it or not, whether it interferes with some fantasy
>> you have about Sanskrit or not, once a word has been borrowed into a
>> language, it is part of that language, and its prior history is not
>> available to the speakers of the language.
>
>yeah right. English speakers coined "telephone" and per the diktat of
>the all-knowing peteyboy dutifully forgot what 'tele" means and by a
>miraculous coincidence coined "television" afterwards with the same
>meaning.
If they are deliberate coinages, they are ipso facto not loanwords.
>Your assertion maybe true for borrowings from unrelated languages,
>but the root words/morphemes of closely related languages from which
>borrowings/coinages have been made can, in many cases, make their
>original morphogical structure felt in the borrowing language.
How many English speakers do you think are aware of the etymology of
"autopsy" or "forensic"?
--
Richard Herring
Nathan Sanders
<7b102f55-4393-4541...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > fuhgeddaboudit Petey - you are completely wrong about this.
> > > "breakdown" with a k-sound will break down - it is unstable. If
> > > someone were to say breagdown or iddoes in everyday speech I doubt
> > > that anybody would find it noticeable.
> >
> > Nathan has amply addressed your mistaken notion that no one would
> > notice. I'd just like to point out that even if no would notice one
> > person pronouncing it that way, it wouldn't mean that everyone is going
> > to pronounce it that way some day.
>
> I don't take everything posters write here as facts - unless you or
> Nathan can cite actual studies supporting the assertions that have
> been made it means very little to me.
If you mean my assertion that native English speakers notice the
difference between voiced and unvoiced codas (and in particular, treat
vowel duration as a cue to voicing), there are *plenty* of studies
demonstrating that!
Even google has a lot of them.
Harlan Messinger
We're native speakers. We sure as heck can tell you when we'd notice
what would sound like a noticeably funny pronunciation to us. In
particular, someone who said "breagdown" would sound conspicuously as
though he either had a cold or was deaf. What's funny is that *you*, a
*non*-native speaker, would offer *your* opinion without citing any
studies supporting *your* assertion.
António Marques
Yeah, and ecdysiast is one of those words with thousands of relatives
pervading the entire language (a Michael Kurland novel talks of
'ecdysiology'; either way, they all have atomic ecdys-).
Not to mention the copious amounts of words transparently made of the
same elements of 'anecdote'.
--
António Marques
Nathan Sanders
na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
> Nathan Sanders <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > A voiceless coda, like the [k] in "breakdown" is typically
> > glottalized, while a voiced coda is never glottalized.
> >
> > Furthermore, a voiced coda causes the preceding vowel to be much
> > longer than a vowel preceding a voiceless coda. The difference in
> > vowel length is so noticeable to English speakers that it allows for
> > distinguishing between words like "beat" and "bead" in whispered
> > (unvoiced) speech.
>
> Does this also apply if the coda is a cluster with a sonorant?
>
> felt - felled
> heart - hard
> hence - hens
Yes, these definitely have longer vowels.
> forts - fords (And just how much voicing do
> gulps - bulbs the obstruents have here?)
I couldn't quite tell impressionistically, so I took a few quick
measurements. The V+liquid sequence was about 0.20 sec in
"forts/gulps", but 0.30 sec in "fords/bulbs".
(I measured V+liquid rather than just V, because it's difficult to
find a well-defined boundary.)
> How about unstressed syllables? I'm having a lot of trouble
> differentiating reverend/reverent.
I tried these out too, and got the r+V+n sequence to be about 0.30 sec
in "reverend" and 0.15 sec in "reverent".
However, the duration difference was much more significant in the
nasal than in the r+V sequence: the nasal was 0.15 sec long in
"reverend", but only about 0.05 sec in "reverent", making the
difference between the r+V sequences much smaller (0.15 versus 0.10).
Harlan Messinger
There are people who know these roots and coin new words from them. That
doesn't alter the fact that when these words become popularized, people
use without regard to, and often or even usually without having
> Your assertion maybe true for borrowings from unrelated languages,
> but the root words/morphemes of closely related languages from which
> borrowings/coinages have been made can, in many cases, make their
> original morphogical structure felt in the borrowing language.
Do you think the average English speaker (or, for that matter, the
average Hindi speaker) has any more of a "feel" for Greek or Latin than
for Arabic or Finnish?
> Your ignorance is sometimes shocking, for an alleged professional in
> the field.
Your ignorance isn't shocking so much as your underestimation of it is.
anal...@hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
> ("Dote" does happen to be a word, but the word "dote" has nothing to
> do with "anecdote".)
This is silliness. The morpheme boundaries are in the orginal greek
word and an-ec-dote is some kind of a latent morphemic breakdown in
English. In this case the latent boundaries may have become
unproductive in English, but in other cases they might not be.
Very fruitful area for research.
>
> > and "anegdote" in everyday speech
> > wouldn't be noticeable, IMO.
>
> Your opinion has no bearing on reality, which is that native English
> speakers would notice.
Call in some of your students, do the experiment and tell the group
the results. How on earth can you know without such an experiment?
>
> Nathan
>
> --
> Nathan Sanders
> Linguistics Program
> Williams Collegehttp://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/- Hide quoted text -
Craoi...@gmail.com
> On Oct 12, 11:41 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:20:57 -0700 (PDT),
> > <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > <news:70315e5c-2515-44aa...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
> > in sci.lang:
>
> > > On Oct 12, 11:04 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:00:22 -0700 (PDT),
> > >> <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >> in sci.lang:
> > >>> On Oct 12, 10:49 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> > >>>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:16:36 -0400, Nathan Sanders
> > >>>> <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote in
> > >>>> in sci.lang:
> > >>>>> In article
> > >>>>> <d1fca8d2-3b81-4b29-b0ec-4c3e962d8...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> > >>>>> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >>>> [...]
> > >>>>>> If you look at the following consonant clusters in English, it seems
> > >>>>>> to me that
> > >>>>>> (1) kt
> > >>>>>> (2) kd
> > >>>>>> (3) gt
> > >>>>>> (4) gd
> > >>>>>> Only (1) Where k can stand for (c, ck etc.) can occur in a single word
> > >>>>>> - all the others can only occur in compound words or at word
> > >>>>>> boundaries.
> > >>>>> (2) anecdote
> > >>>> Too tame. <g> Ecdysiast.
> > >>> tame also - not a counterexample (a morpheme boundary
> > >>> separates the c and d).
> > >> Not in English.
> > > That is very stupid.
>
> > It's a fact,
>
> Whether it is a fact or not - asserting it is stupid. We are trying
> to learn here
If you are trying to learn, stop insulting those you could learn
something from.
Craoi...@gmail.com
Peter, I would like to point out to you, that the most elementary
textbook of Dutch will teach you to pronounce "ik ben" (i.e, "I am")
as "ig ben". Moreover, the little Dutch I have learnt, I have learnt
through German, because an elementary course of Dutch was part of my
German studies program. So, I can assure you that Dutch pronunciation
is radically different from German, especially in such features as
assimilation.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> If someone were to say breagdown or iddoes in everyday speech
> >>>>> I doubt that anybody would find it noticeable.
> We're native speakers. We sure as heck can tell you when we'd notice
> what would sound like a noticeably funny pronunciation to us.
[breI?gdaUn] or [breIGdaUn] might be passable.
> In particular, someone who said "breagdown" would sound conspicuously as
> though he either had a cold or was deaf.
"I have a bad gold id by dose" - in a Tintin comic as far as I
remember.
Peter T. Daniels
That's what I said. Dutch isn't German. German doesn't tolerate
syllable-final voiced stops. Dutch does.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Oct 13, 1:51 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <6661c14a-78f3-4284-acd1-1d929b459...@u75g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > ("Dote" does happen to be a word, but the word "dote" has nothing to
> > do with "anecdote".)
>
> This is silliness. The morpheme boundaries are in the orginal greek
> word and an-ec-dote is some kind of a latent morphemic breakdown in
> English. In this case the latent boundaries may have become
> unproductive in English, but in other cases they might not be.
There are no such "other cases."
> Very fruitful area for research.
No ,it is not.
> > > and "anegdote" in everyday speech
> > > wouldn't be noticeable, IMO.
>
> > Your opinion has no bearing on reality, which is that native English
> > speakers would notice.
>
> Call in some of your students, do the experiment and tell the group
> the results. How on earth can you know without such an experiment?
Because he is a speaker of English.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> On Oct 13, 1:51 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <6661c14a-78f3-4284-acd1-1d929b459...@u75g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > ("Dote" does happen to be a word, but the word "dote" has nothing to
> > do with "anecdote".)
>
> This is silliness. The morpheme boundaries are in the orginal greek
> word and an-ec-dote is some kind of a latent morphemic breakdown in
> English. In this case the latent boundaries may have become
> unproductive in English, but in other cases they might not be.
>
> Very fruitful area for research.
>
>
>
> > > and "anegdote" in everyday speech
> > > wouldn't be noticeable, IMO.
>
> > Your opinion has no bearing on reality, which is that native English
> > speakers would notice.
>
> Call in some of your students, do the experiment and tell the group
> the results. How on earth can you know without such an experiment?
Someone who starts an argument based on "I think..." and "it seems to
me...", then when others disagree he demands hard evidence? Why do
people waste time with him?
He's been here about a year now, and I'm beginning to suspect he has
mastered the Ancient Vedic Science of Time Reversal, as he seems to
know less every time he posts.
Ross Clark
Joachim Pense
>>
>> You haven't defined what you mean -- if anything -- by
>> 'innovated in English', and whatever your definition is --
>> if you even have one -- this is not your original claim.
>
> So what?
>
> You snipped dishonestly again and misquoted what I wrote. "Innovated
> within English" ought to be clear to anybody with an IQ exceeding
> single digits - in this case I think you are only being dishonest and
> not stupid by pretending not to understand the notion.
>
Don't babble around. Please tell us _your_ definition of "innovated within
English" right now.
Joachim
Adam Funk
>> In particular, someone who said "breagdown" would sound conspicuously as
>> though he either had a cold or was deaf.
>
> "I have a bad gold id by dose" - in a Tintin comic as far as I
> remember.
I distinctly remember seeing "I habe a code in my head" in some
dialogue in a book I read in elementary school. I can't remember what
book, but it took me a minute to figure out what it meant for some
reason.
I saw some nice reprints of Tintin in an airport bookshop last year
and bought _Les Cigares du Pharaon_, but I was quite shocked by the
unpleasant caricatures in _Tintin au Congo_. I'm pretty sure I didn't
see that one when I was a kid.
--
Oh, I do most of my quality thinking on the old sandbox. [Bucky Katt]
Craoi...@gmail.com
Quite so.