Re: Donkey and monkey
- From: "ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx" <ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Jan 2007 18:59:39 -0800
Brian M. Scott wrote:
On 1 Jan 2007 15:13:37 -0800, "ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx"
<ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:1167693217.497042.56170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in sci.lang:
[...]
Alternatively, is there a monograph that supplies a
detailed enough description of English stress that one
can write a program to convert a phonetic transcription
marked for primary and secondary stress into a more
detailed phonetic transcription with syllables no longer
marked by ' and , but rather, marked by the phonetic
details?
I do not believe that stress is predictable from what you
are calling the phonetic details.
Consider the following:
orthography can make stress unambiguous for a reader, as is the case in
Spanish and Portuguese
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_(linguistics)
Only vowels are marked for stress in Spanish but the markings are not
unambiguous to one who doesn't know Spanish. With annotations for
length, amplitude and pitch, however, they would be unambiguous.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Donkey and monkey
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Donkey and monkey
- References:
- Re: Donkey and monkey
- From: ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Donkey and monkey
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Donkey and monkey
- From: ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Donkey and monkey
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Donkey and monkey
- From: ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Donkey and monkey
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Donkey and monkey
- From: ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Donkey and monkey
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Donkey and monkey
- From: ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Donkey and monkey
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Donkey and monkey
- Prev by Date: Re: The Origins of Zürich...
- Next by Date: Re: Donkey and monkey
- Previous by thread: Re: Donkey and monkey
- Next by thread: Re: Donkey and monkey
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|