Re: BBC does it again

On Jun 11, 7:47 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
"Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote...
Brian M. Scott wrote:
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote [...]

It does seem (to me) reasonable to suggest that whatever
phonemic representation one chooses to use ought to
express the same thing as the  phonemic model the same
person uses to describe a language.  [...]

I don't agree,

Why? Why *would* one use a representation that doesn't correspond to
the model? I can't see any advantage that would outweigh the confusion
it causes.

One reason might be so that everyone's notation for a given language
variety is the same, independent of what model they espouse.  Your Dutch
example seems pertinent.  I understand (tell me if I'm wrong) that some
people think length is the distinctive feature in those pairs of Dutch
vowels, others claim it's lax vs tense (whatever that means), or amount
of openness and/or frontness.  Most linguists involved with writing
Dutch phonemically aren't super-interested in which model is "correct",
but they would find it convenient if there was one accepted notation for
the (generally accepted) phonemes of Dutch.

I see what you mean. It's just that it's been my impression that the
breaking down of vowel systems into matched pairs of short and long is a
preferred approach wherever possible, based on all the explanations of
seen of the vowel systems in Dutch, Hungarian, Arabic, and so on. In
Hungarian that model is engrained, with length being represented
explicitly by an acute accent in the written language, and differences
in quality between short and long forms are described as a side effect
of the length. So, for example, though short "a" is [ɒ] and long "á" is
[a:], to me it seems convenient to represent them phonemically as /a/
and /a:/, since this corresponds to the understanding the language's own
speakers have of their phonology as well as to the way it's described to
non-speakers.

And yet the phonemic representations posted by whoever in the Wikipedia
article on Hungarian phonology uses /ɒ/ and /a:/, distinguished by shape
as well as by length as in Ruud's representation of Dutch sounds, so I
accept that this is done, and that perhaps the point is that it's a
model used *consistently* for Dutch--and it certainly is one more
demonstration of the unfounded nature of Peter's contention that this is
an unused practice and one that won't be understood.-

Maybe Ruud wrote the wiki article.

Abondolo (Routledge Uralic) has a-umlaut, a-ring, and double-a (no
diacritic) (no /:/ at all)..
.

Loading