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

Re: "iu" and "ui" alternative spellings [was: Chin. Mode: No "-io", but "-io-"]

Expand Messages
  • hisilome
    ... (the voiced counterpart of Mandarin _sh_), and thus somewhat similar to the sibilants _s_ and _z_ (alveolar unvoiced/voiced fricatives). ... [[ Oh yes, it
    Message 1 of 33 , Mar 17, 2006
      --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@...>

      > > Initial _r_ would actually be a bit closer to your description as
      > > a "kind of sibilant", I think, since it's a retroflex fricative
      (the voiced counterpart of Mandarin _sh_), and thus somewhat similar
      to the sibilants _s_ and _z_ (alveolar unvoiced/voiced fricatives).
      > Voiced counterpart of sh... wouldn't that claim for a transcription
      > with anca? ... It might and it might not: On one hand, the doubling
      > doesn't express voicing, but loss of aspiration, so this speaks
      > against anca. On the other hand, "loss of aspiration" does not make
      > any sense in a fricative, and also, there are no other voiced
      > fricatives, so this does not speak againsta anca. So I think the
      > question is, is this sound really that much a fricative that its
      > relation to sh is obvious?

      [[ Oh yes, it certainly is! Just try to pronounce it yourself: roll
      the tip of your tongue up against your palate, and then push the
      air out like you would to pronounce any fricative, letting your vocal
      chords vibrate as with any voiced sound. It's clearly _not_ a
      semivowel (approximant), nor a trill, tap or flap.
      The IPA chart confirms that _sh_ (right-tail "s") and _r-_
      (right-tail "z") are counterparts (and there you'll also find a
      detailed description of the voiced retroflex fricative and a sound


      You may also find this site interesting:


      Therefore, you are right, it would probably be better to represent it
      by anca, rather than putting it in the "semi-vocalic" tyelle together
      with _-r_ (if we don't use an "oore-hook"), _w-_ and _y-_.

      Perhaps it's important to remember that Mandarin _sh_, being a
      retroflex like _-r_, does thus not exactly correspond to the
      English "sh" as in "shine" (the latter being a postalveolar [or
      palato-alveolar--the terminology kills me :)] fricative. The
      similarity is such, though, that using harma for Mandarin _sh_ is
      alright, I believe.

      By the same rationale, _r-_ is much more similar to the voiced
      fricative sound in English "beige" than the alveolar semi-vowel "r".

      It is perhaps unfortunate that the voiced retroflex fricative is
      represented with an "r" at all in Pinyin, since it's not really what
      you'd normaly call an "r-sound". Some other transcription systems
      have used "j" for this sound (and "ch" for Pinyin _j_...), but I
      don't know if that makes a big difference. All a matter of (to some
      degree always arbitrary) definition. Anyway, one should think of _sh_
      and _r-_ as something distinct from what these letters represent in
      most European languages (but that goes for many Pinyin signs, of
      course ;)). ]]

      > So initial r- and final -r
      > are quite different sounds. Is final -r also retroflex?

      [[ No! That's why I wrote: ]]

      > > As for the _alveolar_ sound in _er_, I'd say that your silme-hook
      >>might still work...

      [[ and: ]]

      >this final _r_ is closer to the English frictionless continuant,
      >which is, I believe, "properly" represented by a _turned_ lower-
      >case "r"...

      [[ Guess the explanation in my previous mail got so lengthy as to be
      more confusing than anything else! Sorry... :)

      So, Mandarin _-r_ is basically the same sound as English "r"
      (alveolar approximant or semi-vowel), and thus using oore would
      probably be the best solution for this sound (unless one prefers the
      hook attached to the short carrier). ]]

    • Melroch 'Aestan
      ... Mandarin was a typo for Cantonese here. Sorry. -- /BP 8^) -- Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
      Message 33 of 33 , Mar 19, 2006
        hisilome skrev:

        >>Duh, with six or seven tonemes Mandarin even stretches Roman to
        >>its limits!
        > [ Well, I'm no experts on linguistics (obviously!), so I may
        > misunderstand you here--but if "tonemes" are identical to tones,
        > standard Mandarin has four or five, and as far as I know some
        > subdialects of Mandarin have as little as three. Why six or seven? ]

        "Mandarin" was a typo for "Cantonese" here. Sorry.

        /BP 8^)>
        Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
        A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
        __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
        \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
        / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
        / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Roccondil\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
        /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
        Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
        || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
        "A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.