I'm getting quite good at my Pulmonic Consonants and am working on Vowels, but I just don't get the diacritics or superscript characters.
ʴ ʰ ʱ ʲ ʷ ˠ ˤ ⁿ ˡ << what do each of these mean? is /pʲ/ basically just /pj/? or am I missing something?
s̬ t̬ << What about these? It says the diacritic makes them voiced, so why not just write /z/ and /d/?
◌̪ ◌̺ ◌̼ ◌̻ ◌̃<< er...
◌̹ ◌̜ ◌̟ ◌̠ ◌̈ ◌̽ ◌̝ ◌̩ ◌̞ ◌̯ ◌̘ ◌̙ << what?
Could someone explain IPA diacritics to me?
Re: Could someone explain IPA diacritics to me?
Most of these things represent entirely different things. It would be best to look at what concept they represent, read up on that, and then come back when you're still confused about some.
At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Re: Could someone explain IPA diacritics to me?
I just want to say I have been meaning to ask something very similar actually. Is a k with a superscript w the same as kw for instance.
Seemingly this page should help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... c_notation
And here for "labialization": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labialization
Seemingly this page should help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... c_notation
And here for "labialization": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labialization
Re: Could someone explain IPA diacritics to me?
Aight, since the superscripts do seem to be causing some trouble for multiple people:
No, a superscript is not the same as a normal letter. To take the example of /ʷ/, this represents labialization, i.e. lip rounding. This is clearly distinct from /w/, which is a labial-velar approximant. /kʷ/ is merely a /k/ with rounded lips, while /kw/ is two sounds in sequence. Similarly, palatalization is an additional tongue-raising towards the palate and so on. These happen at the same time as the articulation of the consonant, not afterwards.
No, a superscript is not the same as a normal letter. To take the example of /ʷ/, this represents labialization, i.e. lip rounding. This is clearly distinct from /w/, which is a labial-velar approximant. /kʷ/ is merely a /k/ with rounded lips, while /kw/ is two sounds in sequence. Similarly, palatalization is an additional tongue-raising towards the palate and so on. These happen at the same time as the articulation of the consonant, not afterwards.
At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Re: Could someone explain IPA diacritics to me?
Am I right in stating that it's rare for a language to contrast /kʷ/ and /kw/?
I also know that in regard to Cantonese, there's an argument over the phonemic status of /kʷ/ vs /kw/
I also know that in regard to Cantonese, there's an argument over the phonemic status of /kʷ/ vs /kw/
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
-JRR Tolkien
Re: Could someone explain IPA diacritics to me?
For the most part, I think that the reason that we use the subscripts is mainly to deal with simplifying syllable analysis.Shemtov wrote:Am I right in stating that it's rare for a language to contrast /kʷ/ and /kw/?
I also know that in regard to Cantonese, there's an argument over the phonemic status of /kʷ/ vs /kw/
Spoiler: