-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
laterality, sibilancy, and rhotacity: can we combine the three features? #61
Comments
One important question here is, however, how we treat the numerous flaps, trills, and approximants: do we consider part of them as "rhotic"? Or do we consider this as language-specific? I am also asking, because one finds numerous combinations of affricates with "rhotic" sounds in phoible and the like, where it is often not clear why linguists would choose exactly those sounds: was it to mark an affricate as some sound unit, or rather really to point to a cluster that has distinct articulation for the stop and the liquid element? |
I don't see any obvious objection to this from a practical perspective. The categories of sibilant, lateral, and rhotic are mutually exclusive as far as I can see. |
Okay with trill release is easy to handle as a feature and to hard-code into consonants.tsv. If we think of cases like "tr", which we find in phoible, I'd then write them as "t+superscript-r" and call them "voiceless alveolar rhotic affricate consonant", right? The alternative would be to do it similar to sibilant affricates and model the articulation on both elements, that is: r should have the devoicing marker on top, right? |
I'd say yes to modelling the articulation on both elements. These are parallel to /kx/ "voiceless velar affricate", to /cç/ "voiceless palatal affricate", also /pɸ/, /pf/, /tθ/, /qχ/ etc. so we would have:
As well as the voiced versions which I can write out if you want. |
There are times I want to do a PR to Unicode and the IPA... As for a solution for the post-alveolar, you mean for the post-alveolar rhotic affricate, right? |
Yes, that's the one. |
Okay, @tresoldi, can you please help me on this, and spell out,
tab-separated, as I need it to include it into consonants.tsv, all major
sounds here? I'd then directly introduce those to the PR I am about to
make and also map in phoible. If you give me the name only, I'd have to
shuffle things, but I am about to work on pyclts, to get this right as
well, by merging lateral and sibilant into "airstream". I'd then not add
any "rhotic" airstream, unless you guys give me clear examples, but
rather treat the case of "tr" as t with trilled release, okay?
|
I was looking again to the list of combining diacritical marks in Unicode, and nothing really satisfies me -- in all cases we would proposing something a bit too new. I would suggest to stick with |
@LinguList , I can try, I assume you mean "a list of all affricates, with name and grapheme". I am sorry but I am still finding some difficulty in many discussions: while I can follow your overall reasoning on how to encode the features, I am unsure about what are the criteria for deciding on something as a feature, a value, or just exclude it, particularly when clusters are involved. Having laterality, sibilancy and rhoticity as value of an "airstream" feature is an example, because -- unless I misunderstood -- feature values are supposed to be exclusive, so you could not have both. On the matter, we might decide on a different name, as "airstream" is usually taken as "airstream mechanism". |
It is a lateral airstream as opposed to a normal airstream that makes
laterals lateral, as far as I understand. Please provide alternatives,
or we can stop discussion. It does not help to just dislike something,
we need to be constructive.
Note that I am changing a lot of files now at the same time, it does not
help me if we go back and forth with these decisions, so we need to
decide this, and so far, laterality and sibilancy do not occur together.
And if it is not clear what I mean, I'll then deal with it myself.
|
The cases of /tr/ in PHOIBLE have trilled release. |
Ok, for all other matters, just please provide me an example with column names and one or two rows of what is needed. I will do my best to do it and refrain from any theoretical discussion. |
What I want is very simple, and I'd also ask @cormacanderson to provide data in the future in exactly this form, as it is easier if you do it directly. /1 |
If you want to provide a direct sound to CLTS, you need to determine its sound class. For example, if it is a consonant, you need to modify the consonants.tsv table. /2 |
This table has a header of the following form:
/3 |
If you provide additional articulations, these are added to the field EXTRA, in the form
/4 |
So if I ask you to provide me with the data in this form, I ask you to provide the data in tab-separated form in such a way that I only need to insert it into that file.
Then becomes:
/5 |
Then I can copy-paste it. But beware: if you give me an affricate fricative, you need to also add the "extra" features, and this is something you have not done so far, you just pasted me the "with_friction" or similar, and I have to figure out what feature it is, because I am only given a feature value. What you have to understand is that our table is constructed like this: we provide BASE features phonation, place, manner, and all other features using the |
So (and this is my last remark): I was just asking for you, @tresoldi, or @cormacanderson, to help me a bit by providing the new sounds in this format, which you can paste as |
I think these are the sounds. No special diacritic on the plosive for alveolars and post-alveolars, as I undestood. @cormacanderson , could you confirm?
|
@tresoldi yes, I think so. This is how we deal with other affricates, e.g. ts̪. We should also take the opportunity here to add the corresponding fricatives, so if you could also add these please @LinguList
This will also resolve #51. |
Nice, this improves the mapping more. Question, @cormacanderson, what do we do with |
I have amended the table above to add frequent aliases for the alveolar fricatives, as these are also used in the literature and are not otherwise likely to cause confusion. |
Alias syntax is different: you write an extra line with the same sound, copying it, but you add a |
For tɾ in PHOIBLE if I remember right one case was trilled release (Arigna) and I think I questioned the data with Mbembe. |
Aye aye captain
Like this? |
And |
That would be a voiced retroflex with trilled release |
voiced retroflex stop with trilled release? |
ɖʳ |
Exactly.
|
We have laterality for lateral affricates and all laterals. Since laterality is a "base" feature that defines a base symbol, like "l", as is "sibilancy" (e.g., "s"), I wonder if we can treat the "rhotic affricates" in the same way. If we accept them (which makes sense to me), this would mean that we have one more base feature that is not listed as the official base, since it is often undefined. On the other hand, there is no clash between rhotacity and laterality and sibilancy, right? So could we not say that we an additional feature, maybe even just calling it "airstream" and giving it three values, "lateral", "sibilant", and "rhotic"?
I am suggesting this, because it would help us to handle these three features at once, while by now, we have quite some trouble, also in ordering the data.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: