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

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

Expand Messages
  • j_mach_wust
    Hisilome wrote: ... That doesn t matter, since we ve already changed the meaning of the calmatéma to express retroflex sounds, not palato-alveolar (or
    Message 1 of 33 , Mar 18, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hisilome wrote:
      > 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.

      That doesn't matter, since we've already changed the meaning of the
      calmatéma to express retroflex sounds, not palato-alveolar (or
      palatal) sounds.

      > 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 ;)). ]]

      Yes, Pinyin is quite awkward -- but so is English as well, using many
      letters in a fashion not shared by other Latin scripts. Better not to
      bother about these matters...

      > > 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... :)

      Well, no, it was not that you explanation was bad at all, I just asked
      again because in this case, the wikipedia page on Pinyin is not
      accurate, because it transcribes final -r explicitly with the sign for
      the retroflex approximant. With respect to the initial r-, on the
      other hand, I guess the wikipedia page might not be too far off by
      claiming that this sound might either be an approximant or a voiced
      fricative, since I guess the difference might be minor and the actual
      sound might be inbetween approximant and voiced fricative or vary
      between the two (just like for instance the /v/ in my German variety
      where I can't tell whether it's an approximant or a fricative and
      where both interpretations are used by phoneticians -- and like
      Mandarin /r-/ it is the only sound of that kind, all other fricatives
      being voiceless).


      > Hm. Just thought of another thing that might make the phonetic
      > Mandarin mode even simpler: The syllables where _-i_ just indicates
      > syllabicity (i.e. _ji, qi, xi, zhi, chi, shi, ri, zi, ci, si_)--as
      > opposed to those where we're dealing with an actual i-sound (such as
      > _li, di, ti, mi, ni, pi, bi_)--don't really require the double
      > under-dot, do they? The single under-dot to indicate syllabicity
      > should be enough here I think. This way we'll have even less triple
      > under-dots. ;)

      Of course! It was just my sense of symmetry that kept me from
      incorporating this solution in my charts, since in order to
      incorporate it, I would have been impossible to use the same initial
      tengwa for all samples. Gopf, what a silly reason!

      j. 'mach' wust
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.