tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2382369381372118960.post5775523077994567350..comments2024-01-08T18:25:51.974+00:00Comments on Kraut's English phonetic blog: PT's transcription workbook - some observations, #3Krauthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11932831673529849848noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2382369381372118960.post-14396115487524605972011-09-08T16:54:31.171+01:002011-09-08T16:54:31.171+01:00@Lipman: Rest assured that you're not missing ...@Lipman: Rest assured that you're not missing anything (important). I agree with you that the syllabic n has an underlying schwa + n. I don't believe there to be a true minimal pair.Krauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11932831673529849848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2382369381372118960.post-20541073851103736862011-09-08T15:42:52.088+01:002011-09-08T15:42:52.088+01:00What would be a (fictional) example then? Wouldn&#...What would be a (fictional) example then? Wouldn't you always view the syllabic n as schwa + n? (I might be missing something here.)Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2382369381372118960.post-25366556560206957652011-09-08T13:17:38.908+01:002011-09-08T13:17:38.908+01:00@Martin: Congratulations! Very nice example, but n...@Martin: Congratulations! Very nice example, but not of a minimal pair proving that syllabic and non-syllabic n-sounds are representatives of different phonemes. I'm still waiting for the true, genuine, unequivocal pair ...Krauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11932831673529849848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2382369381372118960.post-87993892791286552642011-09-08T05:23:45.769+01:002011-09-08T05:23:45.769+01:00"lightening" and "lightning"?"lightening" and "lightning"?Martin J Ballhttp://clinicallinguistics.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2382369381372118960.post-83726692643176083472011-09-07T20:29:19.214+01:002011-09-07T20:29:19.214+01:00... that he is waiting for the perfect pair... that he is waiting for the perfect pairKrauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11932831673529849848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2382369381372118960.post-36615513616692881632011-09-07T19:57:43.630+01:002011-09-07T19:57:43.630+01:00So how do you explain the (phonetic) difference be...So how do you explain the (phonetic) difference between the ns of [glʌtn̩i] and [ʧʌtni]? Obviously, one might say the syllabic n in the first case is a variant of schwa + n, or the realisation of this underlying phonemic combination, but the same would be possible in case there were a perfect pair, wouldn't it?Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2382369381372118960.post-86358035920725484912011-09-07T16:30:12.142+01:002011-09-07T16:30:12.142+01:00English phonology has existed for over a century n...English phonology has existed for over a century now, and as far as I know (limited as my knowledge is), no minimal pair has been found. If, however, there is such a pair, I'd be more than happy to revise my statement.Krauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11932831673529849848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2382369381372118960.post-88986216371424716242011-09-07T14:34:35.859+01:002011-09-07T14:34:35.859+01:00I'm afraid I have to take issue with the claim...I'm afraid I have to take issue with the claim "no meaning distinction can be established between, for example, a syllabic and a non-syllabic /n/-sound in English". I very much dou·t if there is a minimal pair to prove my point but I suggest that the words 'gluttony' /glʌtn̩i/ and 'chutney' (never /*ʧʌtn̩i/ show that a minimal pair cou·d exist.JWLhttp://www.yek.me.uk/noreply@blogger.com