Re: Primary and secondary stress in pt-PT


António Marques schrieb:
> Ekkehard Dengler wrote:

> > As long as unstressed "e" and "o" (I have my reasons for not
transcribing
> > them) can, but needn't, be realised identically, namely as zero, their
> > phonological status is unclear, isn't it, in that they can be considered
> > either separate phonemes or allophones of a single phoneme.
>
> I'll assume you're referring to e and o graphemes, then?

No, I mean all sounds represented by these graphemes.

> I'll try to resume the picture I know:
>
> Stressed:
>
> i u
> e @ o
> E O
> a

Uncontroversial.

> Unstressed:
>
> Zero!
> i% I U~u#
> e* @ o+
> E$ O§
> a$

> % It always existed, I think.

I agree, but why point it out? Even if you dissimilated every single
instance of unstressed /i/ before stressed /i/ in the same word, there would
still be many i's left in words like "ficar", "tirada" or "mirrado".

However, I'm not sure I'd agree with the idea that unstressed "o" can be a
realised as a central vowel, which I assume is what you mean by "barred".

> § I can't find any rock solid unstressed O but I'm sure it exists.
> Aside from the fact that an O may be in variation with o (which, let's
> recap, usually corresponds to a stressed O).

How about "adoptar"?

Regards,
Ekkehard


.