dev
dev copied to clipboard
phoible
Old issue to close
The sounds from nmn: dʼkxʼ : not in PDF... should be dtʼkxʼ I think? described as prevoicing followed by sequence of two ejectives (three-part contour seg) d̪ʼkxʼ : not in PDF... should be d̪t̪ʼkxʼ I think? (same as above) ɡʼkxʼ : not in PDF... I do see ɡkxʼ which ought to be a prevoiced velar ejective (two-part contour segment: ɡ features + kxʼ features) pʼkxʼ : this ought to be fine, should be treated as two-part contour (the features for pʼ (bilabial ejective stop) followed by the features for kxʼ (velar ejective affricate)) tʼkxʼ : ditto t̪ʼkxʼ : ditto As to why they are crashing the script... the first three might be crashing because the ejective marker is on a voiced segment (ejectives can't be voiced)... ?
Regarding the prenasalized ones, a contour segment with the features you've mentioned (+nas, +son, 0delrel) sounds right to me. The rest it sounds like you already figured out right?
Found it. I was looking in the wrong thread... it got buried in the other thread after richard's question about "round" and "tense". Short answer is that there is not really enough info in that resource to really know all the phonemes. My best guesses:
- treat fortis stops as in !Xoo, namely as a prevoiced aspirated stop like dtʰ or ɡkʰ
- use unicode point 203c (‼) for the retroflex click
- the square brackets in the chart on page 5 indicate the IPA interpretation of the orthography, in cases where the authors thought it was unclear.
- the complex stops are a piece of work... sighting down the EGR-AL column on page 5, here is my best guess at what I see: l t d dtʰ tʼ tʰ d̤ tx dx
Honestly I don't have time to try to puzzle out the rest of this inventory at the moment... there's not enough information there for me to do anything other than make wild guesses, and I'd rather focus on the Clements scripts.
ɲɟʝ is fine
ndʑ is fine
ɲdʑ does not obey our rules for homorganic place for prenasalization.
Should check the grammars.
I'm not sure what to do with this issue. Is this all in reference to the same inventory? It's hard to tell. Also since previously I was unwilling / unable to do anything other than make wild guesses based on an incomplete description of the language, I'm not hopeful that another look at the source will reveal any fresh insights. Can you clarify what you want to be done about this issue?
I think for these and other clicks we might just have to go without fully specified feature vectors. @drammock ? If so, we can close.
if the only problem is feature vectors, i think it's fine to close, but i just skimmed it and there was mention of affricates that are not homorganic? which sounds like a segment issue. maybe another look at the source is warranted. can you send?
On February 26, 2019 4:34:21 AM AKST, Steven Moran [email protected] wrote:
I think for these and other clicks we might just have to go without fully specified feature vectors. @drammock ? If so, we can close.