Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

151010Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)

Expand Messages
  • Paul Roser
    Feb 8, 2008
      On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:38:17 -0500, John Vertical <johnvertical@...>

      >On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:09:50 +0100, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
      >>2008/2/1, John Vertical <johnvertical@...>:
      >>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:20:24 +0100, Benct Philip
      >>> Jonsson wrote:
      >>> Like me with my preference to use ) not _ for an actual
      >>> tie bar; tS_w_h would become thSw))) or maybe even
      >>> tWS)) ;)
      >>Actually I think [tS_h_w], since labialization would persist
      >>through the aspiration phase! ;-)
      >>/ BP
      >Phonation before 2ndary articulation does make sense, but is there any
      >actual IPA/SAMPA standard on the order of diacritics?

      I don't have my copy of the IPA here, but impressionistically I'd say that
      the most frequent order I've seen is phonation-2ndary articulation, although
      a few writers merge the two, using eg, a superscript <w> with an under-ring
      for aspirated + labialized, though this does not appear to be common practice.

      But I do believe I've seen the reverse order (secondary articulation -
      phonation) as well - the order seems to be more fluid for ejectives as I'm
      positive I have seen both <kw'> and <k'w> in use (where <w> is superscript).

    • Show all 16 messages in this topic