New answers tagged

5

As a new contributor myself, I have to post this as an answer, though it's slight enough that it should really be a comment on Draconis' excellent answer (specifically a response to TKR's comment on it). I think the spelling makes <frabjous> look a bit less English than it sounds. Draconis enumerates lots of good reasons for why it's phonotactically ...


28

You mention the pronunciation /ˈfɹæb.dʒəs/ in the comments; this is how I would pronounce it too. Phonotactics are usually explained in terms of constraints ("you can't do this"), so the short answer is that it doesn't violate any of those constraints. If we look at all the parts individually: /fɹ/ is a valid onset, as in "frog" /æb/ is ...


3

You don't "break down" words into phonemes, you first transcribe a spoken word into a language-neutral alphabet which represents how the word is actually pronounced, and then you analyze the transcriptions according to some principles of phonemic analysis to decide what phonemes are present. The first task is extremely difficult (requires extensive ...


3

Augmenting @JoyfulSadness's answer, assuming ړ as the corresponding Pashto phoneme for Urdu's ڑ, here are couple of Pashto words: ړومبی (dialectal form of لومړی), and ړوند. In Sindhi & Shina Abjad, it is written as ڙ. Example: ڙک Also Malayalam Abjad seems to have a phoneme for that (ڔ). Example: ڔاگی (ṟāgi, meaning finger millet) Punjabi Shahmukhi also ...


5

In Pashto (Indo-Iranian), the word for ‘blind’ does begin with /ɽ/ and is also written with ‘ڑ’ in some scripts, though most widely accepted scripts use ړ. blind: [ɽʉ̃n] (it's also pronounced with [ɻ])


7

Since you tagged this "phonology" rather than "phonetics": There are a few different ways of representing the second syllable of words like "mirror" in rhotic dialects. Some people treat it as a combination of a vowel /ə/ and a consonant; other people treat it as a syllabic resonant /ɹ̩/. (The same goes for the second syllable ...


4

If you look at official IPA charts (here, here), you won't find the letter /ɚ/ anymore. Esling's chart (the second of those) exemplifies the rhoticity diacritic on regular schwa (ə plus rhotic-hook, i.e. [ ə˞ ], analogous to [a˞] and so on. All that means is, "whatever the vowel is, plus a rhotic quality", which can be any kind of rhotic ...


7

If you mean "was there a separate phoneme *s̠ separate from *s", almost certainly not. Current reconstructions explain the data very well with only a single sibilant *s, and I haven't seen any theories that add another one (or any reason why it would be necessary). If you mean "was PIE *s pronounced [s̠]", though… We don't (and can't) ...


2

I feel like this is a common question people have when they first learn about the labiovelar series, but none of these answers are very satisfying. As said, if we can't find a direct difference in reflexes, then we might look for differences in behaviour: we would always expect to see *kʷ as *kʷ, but *kw would, in certain circumstances, become *ku instead. ...


4

This is an interesting question. On the whole, Sumerologists read Sumerian thru the window of Babylonian phonetics. Quite clearly, this means that Sumerian as per Sumerology is not genuine Sumerian. I've been working on reconstructing the real phonetics of Sumerian. It seems that Sumerian had two "secret" laryngeals, not just ḥ which is e-coloring, ...


Top 50 recent answers are included