Timeline for Labialisation and palatisation in IPA: one consonant or two phones?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 2016 at 23:08 | comment | added | user6726 | @TKR, disappointingly minimal. You don't have to say what order phonemes come in: it follows from prosodic structure. I'm not a huge fan, I have to say, but we just love exploiting "predictable" properties. | |
| Dec 9, 2016 at 22:57 | vote | accept | slipperyiron | ||
| Dec 9, 2016 at 22:47 | history | edited | TKR | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 95 characters in body
|
| Dec 9, 2016 at 22:44 | comment | added | TKR | @user6726 Thanks, I didn't know that. It seems that if you treat all clusters as phonemes then you've just redefined "phoneme" as "allowed cluster" -- what's the theoretical payoff there? | |
| Dec 9, 2016 at 21:16 | comment | added | user6726 | Multiple serious linguists have proposed the single-phoneme analysis for all onset clusters in English: Osamu Fujimura's C-D model features this as a means of disposing of linear order of segments. | |
| Dec 9, 2016 at 19:00 | comment | added | slipperyiron | This an excellent guide. Better than anything I would have hoped for. Thank you. For Anuak, Mabaan and Shilluk, this breaks 4:1 in favour of palatalization analysis. Palatalised sounds don't occur in coda in the la | |
| Dec 9, 2016 at 18:48 | history | answered | TKR | CC BY-SA 3.0 |