From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: ASCII representation of IPA (second draft) and call for examples
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:32:27 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Oct5.162218.8257@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:
>In article <10930@hogg.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>I don't think any language distinguishes between an
>>ejective and an implosive version of the same segment.  I'll check.

It was a good guess.  Ejectives are always voiceless, although !Xu~
has prevoiced ejectives (but no implosives).  Implosives are almost
always voiced, except that Igbo has /p<imp>/ and /t<imp>/ (but no
/p<ejc>/ or /t<ejc>/).  There are also laryngealised sonorant plosives
and glottalised clicks.  That's four features that can do with a
single diacritic.

>>>Perhaps we should use "~"
>>>only for velarization on consonants and mark pharyngealization with <H>.
>>
>>This is certainly possible.

But it is still true that velarisation and pharyngealisation don't coo"ccur.
The second is not a very frequent feature of consonants, Arabic being one of
the few languages that have it.  The first is more common.

>>In the books I checked the tilde goes beneath
>>the letter for /<fsd>/, across it for /<vsd>/, and above it for /<nsd>/.

Except that Maddieson uses the low tilde for <laryngealised>.
His notation for <pharyngealised> is a superscript reversed glottal stop.
(And for <glottalised> he uses a superscript regular glottal stop.)

>><...> you can have vowels "with velar structure".  Maddieson says so.
>>He also says that there are "retroflexed" vowels.  (The double quotes
>>indicate that I have no idea what these sound like.)
>
>Yeah, but does he mark them with tildes and dots?

No, of course not.  Velar structure is not the same as velarisation,
nor is retroflexed the same as retroflex.  --  He uses a superscript IPA
gamma for the first, and an inverted "r" beneath the vowel for the second.

>If neither of us
>can imagine the segments (and I've never seen them written down), I
>don't think we have to worry about their being easy to write. :-)

Not before someone needs them, and I wouldn't hold my breath for that.
The distribution is the following:

  Vowels with velar structure: OBSCURE Siriono.
    (That is, maybe it has them, maybe it doesn't.)
  Retroflexed vowels: Tarascan, Mandarin.

Also, laryngealised vowels only occur in Sedang and South Nambiquara.
Laryngealised consonants are more common.

(Sedang is Austro-Asiatic, Mandarin is Sino-Tibetan, the rest are Amerindian.)

>My current inclination is to use "~" for velarized consonants and
>nasalized vowelsm "<H>" for pharyngealized segments, and "<?>" for
>glottalized (murmured) segments.  People should, of course, feel free
>to use "~" for "general secondary articulation", but should provide a
>key for nonstandard use.

Yes, this sounds good to me.  Something like "Arabic: /~/ := /<H>/" in
the beginning of the article would solve the problem.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: sci.lang