Moderators:''', Forum Administrators
vijayjohn wrote:You're taking a linguistics class?! I never knew that! Can I help?
Meera wrote:vijayjohn wrote:You're taking a linguistics class?! I never knew that! Can I help?
yes please
vijayjohn wrote:Meera wrote:vijayjohn wrote:You're taking a linguistics class?! I never knew that! Can I help?
yes please
Okay! What can I help with? Do you have any specific questions? IIRC, you posted something about learning about phonology and stuff like phonemes and allophones. Are you trying to figure out what the difference is between those two things? It's okay, everybody struggles with that at first; I did, too.
But [ i ] often occurs at the beginning of a word, and [ɨ] can too (rarely).vijayjohn wrote:So like you said, [ i ] only ever occurs after a palatal(ized) consonant in Russian, with [ɨ] occurring elsewhere. To me, that suggests that they're allophones of the same phoneme.
This affrication is not universal in Russian, though. I think.I think you could make a case for saying that this is a situation where native speakers are sensitive to allophonic variation (this does happen sometimes; for example, I remember that dEhiN once mentioned Tamil-speakers being able to tell the difference between a dental nasal and an alveolar one even though they're definitely allophones of the same phoneme in Tamil). You could also argue that even when there is no audible, Russian-style palatalization (e.g. /d/ > [d̻ʲzʲ] or whatever before a front vowel), the consonant can still be palatalized.
Since back vowels tend to velarize consonants in Russian, perhaps what they're perceiving is the lack of that (even though it's allophonic).I think it's fair to say that palatalization of some sort is difficult in general to avoid before front vowels, cross-linguistically, since we don't produce sounds in isolation; whenever we speak, we're always subconsciously anticipating some of the sounds that will follow the sound that we're currently producing, so we constantly have coarticulation effects all over the place.
mōdgethanc wrote:But [ i ] often occurs at the beginning of a word
mōdgethanc wrote:Since back vowels tend to velarize consonants in Russian, perhaps what they're perceiving is the lack of that (even though it's allophonic).
No, it's not. That's impossible in Russian phonotactics. The rule is that either [i] or iotated vowels (like /ja/, /je/, /ju/) trigger palatalization. [i] and [j] are basically the same sound, right? But I think the letter is always just [i], not [ji]*.vijayjohn wrote:Are you sure, or is that [ji] then?
Try the IPA tags.Wait, how come I have to write [ i ] and voron doesn't??
The second one might. I'm not completely sure though.I'm confused; how would that help with distinguishing [dim] from [dɨm]? Neither of those have velarization, right?
He's not using the IPA tags (which also works for that), so I guess he checked the option to disable BBCode for that post.vijayjohn wrote:EDIT: Wait, how come I have to write [ i ] and voron doesn't??
No, it's not. That's impossible in Russian phonotactics. The rule is that either [i] or iotated vowels (like /ja/, /je/, /ju/) trigger palatalization.
[i] and [j] are basically the same sound, right?
Try the IPA tags.Wait, how come I have to write [ i ] and voron doesn't??
Serafín wrote:so I guess he checked the option to disable BBCode for that post.
Return to “Language Logs and Blogs”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests