Question about affricate terminology

[Nachtuil]

This is a terminological query and this might be a lot more clear cut than I perceive it at the moment so I hope my ignorance on the matter can be forgiven. I understand your standard affricates are pairs of stops and fricatives that share a point of articulation and are analysed as a single phoneme.

Is there any reason that a consonant pair that has two sounds not sharing a single point of articulation can't be considered an affricate? Say, could a language have a affricate /ks/ phoneme? (sorry for the lack of tie bar) Do such phonemes exist in natural languages and if so are they considered affricates despite breaking the single point of articulation rule? I hope this question makes sense.

[Sumelic]

Wikipedia has a section on heterorganic affricates. I doubt its analysis is particularly deep/authoritative, but it seems to me that there's no obvious reason why they wouldn't be able to be considered as single phonemes. Different phonological theories might have different technical definitions of what an affricate is, but I don't think knowledge of these technical definitions is particularly useful for conlanging.

[elemtilas]

This is a terminological query and this might be a lot more clear cut than I perceive it at the moment so I hope my ignorance on the matter can be forgiven. I understand your standard affricates are pairs of stops and fricatives that share a point of articulation and are analysed as a single phoneme.

Is there any reason that a consonant pair that has two sounds not sharing a single point of articulation can't be considered an affricate? Say, could a language have a affricate /ks/ phoneme? (sorry for the lack of tie bar) Do such phonemes exist in natural languages and if so are they considered affricates despite breaking the single point of articulation rule? I hope this question makes sense.

Re the lack of tie bar: just in case you weren't aware, there is a nice IPA typing interface here that allows a fairly easy access to individual and overstruck IPA characters. k͡s --- not perfect, but gets the job done and seems to be well recognised by whatever font it is we're using here at CBB.

[gestaltist]

In some analyses, affricates are understood simply as strident stops. That makes heterorganic affricates problematic, though, and I don't think they are treated as such under these analyses.

[Lambuzhao]

Is there any reason that a consonant pair that has two sounds not sharing a single point of articulation can't be considered an affricate? Say, could a language have a affricate /ks/ phoneme? (sorry for the lack of tie bar) Do such phonemes exist in natural languages and if so are they considered affricates despite breaking the single point of articulation rule? I hope this question makes sense.

I'm pretty sure continuum does this.

Cf.
Ξ ξ [ks]

Ψ ψ [ps]

E.g.

αξιον 'worthy' [a.ksjon] [ak.sjon]

υψιλον 'upsilon' [y.psi.lon] [yp.si.lon]

[GrandPiano]

Is there any reason that a consonant pair that has two sounds not sharing a single point of articulation can't be considered an affricate? Say, could a language have a affricate /ks/ phoneme? (sorry for the lack of tie bar) Do such phonemes exist in natural languages and if so are they considered affricates despite breaking the single point of articulation rule? I hope this question makes sense.

I'm pretty sure continuum does this.

Cf.
Ξ ξ [ks]

Ψ ψ [ps]

E.g.

αξιον 'worthy' [a.ksjon] [ak.sjon]

υψιλον 'upsilon' [y.psi.lon] [yp.si.lon]

Aren't Greek /ps/ and /ks/ usually analyzed as clusters, not affricates?

[Sumelic]

Is there any reason that a consonant pair that has two sounds not sharing a single point of articulation can't be considered an affricate? Say, could a language have a affricate /ks/ phoneme? (sorry for the lack of tie bar) Do such phonemes exist in natural languages and if so are they considered affricates despite breaking the single point of articulation rule? I hope this question makes sense.

I'm pretty sure continuum does this.

Cf.
Ξ ξ [ks]

Ψ ψ [ps]

E.g.

αξιον 'worthy' [a.ksjon] [ak.sjon]

υψιλον 'upsilon' [y.psi.lon] [yp.si.lon]

Aren't Greek /ps/ and /ks/ usually analyzed as clusters, not affricates?

Yes, that's my impression. They're written with single letters, but from what I understand both of them make a preceding syllable heavy "by position" (i.e. even if it has a short vowel), which suggests they were split between two syllables intervocalically. (mentioned here: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-foru ... 22&t=59587) This does seem to violate the Maximal Onset Principle, but so does the syllabification of clusters of impure s + another consonant or clusters of two plosives (both of which could occur word-initially in Greek, but which I believe were split intervocalically between the two surrounding syllables). I've read an analysis that views the initial element of such clusters as occupying a pre-word "appendix" (like the post-word appendix used in English words like "strength-s") that is not part of the syllable structurally.

[Nachtuil]

Thank you for the responses and resources everyone! I am a bit disappointed it seems a bit open to interpretation but maybe that is entirely normal with linguistics. Right?

[Sumelic]

I think it's common in general for technical terminology to have different definitions depending on the specific theoretical framework being used. Especially in social sciences.

[Nachtuil]

Seemingly. I just don't want to be pelted with fruit if I label such combinations as affricates but maybe I am too concerned with convention.

[elemtilas]

Seemingly. I just don't want to be pelted with fruit if I label such combinations as affricates but maybe I am too concerned with convention.

No worries! We only pelt folks with the juiciest and sweetest of heirloom tomatoes!

[gestaltist]

Seemingly. I just don't want to be pelted with fruit if I label such combinations as affricates but maybe I am too concerned with convention.

Well, labelling these as affricates should mean something in your language's phonology, e.g.:

• the language doesn't allow consonant clusters but allows these combinations so they are better reanalyzed as singular phonemes = affricates
• there is a phonemic difference between /ks/ and /k͜s/ - for example, the duration of the sibilant part is shorter in the affricate, or /ks/ is aspirated while /k͜s/ isn't, or something like that
• there are coda-sensitive phonological rules, and /k͜s/ in the onset doesn't trigger a heavy coda in the preceding syllable

If there is no phonological justification for treating them as affricates, I wouldn't, because it's not the standard way to see them.

[Ebon]

Seemingly. I just don't want to be pelted with fruit if I label such combinations as affricates but maybe I am too concerned with convention.

Well, labelling these as affricates should mean something in your language's phonology, e.g.:

• the language doesn't allow consonant clusters but allows these combinations so they are better reanalyzed as singular phonemes = affricates
• there is a phonemic difference between /ks/ and /k͜s/ - for example, the duration of the sibilant part is shorter in the affricate, or /ks/ is aspirated while /k͜s/ isn't, or something like that
• there are coda-sensitive phonological rules, and /k͜s/ in the onset doesn't trigger a heavy coda in the preceding syllable

If there is no phonological justification for treating them as affricates, I wouldn't, because it's not the standard way to see them.

Would that mean that English /ʤ/ isn't an affricate? English allows clusters and I don't know about two different /ʤ/s or special rules for it.

Just wondering. I'm not sure about affricate classification myself.

[gestaltist]

Would that mean that English /ʤ/ isn't an affricate? English allows clusters and I don't know about two different /ʤ/s or special rules for it.

Just wondering. I'm not sure about affricate classification myself.

I'm not an expert on English phonology so I don't know. but it's different for ʤ because it's homorganic. It's the heterorganic affricates that are problematic and need special justification because they are usually treated as clusters. As I said, under some analyzes, you can argue that d͜ʒ is a single sound - the strident equivalent of the corresponding stop, or the non-continuant equivalent of ʒ. For a heterorganic cluster like /ks/, you cannot argue that, because the strident equivalent of /k/ would be /k͜x/, and the [-continuant] equivalent of /s/ would be /t͜s/

[Ebon]

I'm not an expert on English phonology so I don't know. but it's different for ʤ because it's homorganic. It's the heterorganic affricates that are problematic and need special justification because they are usually treated as clusters. As I said, under some analyzes, you can argue that d͜ʒ is a single sound - the strident equivalent of the corresponding stop, or the non-continuant equivalent of ʒ. For a heterorganic cluster like /ks/, you cannot argue that, because the strident equivalent of /k/ would be /k͜x/, and the [-continuant] equivalent of /s/ would be /t͜s/

Ahh, okay. I misunderstood and thought that you referred to affricates in general.

[Sumelic]

Seemingly. I just don't want to be pelted with fruit if I label such combinations as affricates but maybe I am too concerned with convention.

Well, labelling these as affricates should mean something in your language's phonology, e.g.:

• the language doesn't allow consonant clusters but allows these combinations so they are better reanalyzed as singular phonemes = affricates
• there is a phonemic difference between /ks/ and /k͜s/ - for example, the duration of the sibilant part is shorter in the affricate, or /ks/ is aspirated while /k͜s/ isn't, or something like that
• there are coda-sensitive phonological rules, and /k͜s/ in the onset doesn't trigger a heavy coda in the preceding syllable

If there is no phonological justification for treating them as affricates, I wouldn't, because it's not the standard way to see them.

Would that mean that English /ʤ/ isn't an affricate? English allows clusters and I don't know about two different /ʤ/s or special rules for it.

Just wondering. I'm not sure about affricate classification myself.

English doesn't generally allow clusters of stop + fricative word-initially. If /dʒ/ and /tʃ/ were classified as clusters, they would be the only clusters of this type that are possible at the start of English words. Also, independent /ʒ/ is much rarer and has a more limited distribution than /dʒ/, which wouldn't be expected if the latter were just a cluster of /d/ and /ʒ/. I can't think of much evidence other than that that goes against them being clusters.

[Nachtuil]

Seemingly. I just don't want to be pelted with fruit if I label such combinations as affricates but maybe I am too concerned with convention.

Well, labelling these as affricates should mean something in your language's phonology, e.g.:

• the language doesn't allow consonant clusters but allows these combinations so they are better reanalyzed as singular phonemes = affricates
• there is a phonemic difference between /ks/ and /k͜s/ - for example, the duration of the sibilant part is shorter in the affricate, or /ks/ is aspirated while /k͜s/ isn't, or something like that
• there are coda-sensitive phonological rules, and /k͜s/ in the onset doesn't trigger a heavy coda in the preceding syllable

If there is no phonological justification for treating them as affricates, I wouldn't, because it's not the standard way to see them.

Thanks, those seem like really good guidelines. I think the conlang I was asking about this for would allow point one which is good to know.

[GrandPiano]

Seemingly. I just don't want to be pelted with fruit if I label such combinations as affricates but maybe I am too concerned with convention.

Well, labelling these as affricates should mean something in your language's phonology, e.g.:

• the language doesn't allow consonant clusters but allows these combinations so they are better reanalyzed as singular phonemes = affricates
• there is a phonemic difference between /ks/ and /k͜s/ - for example, the duration of the sibilant part is shorter in the affricate, or /ks/ is aspirated while /k͜s/ isn't, or something like that
• there are coda-sensitive phonological rules, and /k͜s/ in the onset doesn't trigger a heavy coda in the preceding syllable

If there is no phonological justification for treating them as affricates, I wouldn't, because it's not the standard way to see them.

Would that mean that English /ʤ/ isn't an affricate? English allows clusters and I don't know about two different /ʤ/s or special rules for it.

Just wondering. I'm not sure about affricate classification myself.

English doesn't generally allow clusters of stop + fricative word-initially. If /dʒ/ and /tʃ/ were classified as clusters, they would be the only clusters of this type that are possible at the start of English words. Also, independent /ʒ/ is much rarer and has a more limited distribution than /dʒ/, which wouldn't be expected if the latter were just a cluster of /d/ and /ʒ/. I can't think of much evidence other than that that goes against them being clusters.

There's also the fact that native speakers typically perceive them as being single phonemes.

[Curlyjimsam]

I can imagine in principle a language with (say) /ps/, /ts/, /ks/ where these act in the same way single consonants in regard to phonotactics, determination of stress placement etc. and might therefore be reasonably analysed as phonemes in their own right. Say if the general syllable structure is (C)(j,w)V(C), but syllables like /kswig/ and /daps/ are also permissible.