is this a minimal pair?
[kɨtʲ] and [kʲitʲ]
the diacritic at the top is "j" for palatalized. this diacritic is seen after "t" and the second "k". Does diacritics play a role in determining minimal pairs?
These might be minimal pairs in a language like Russian where the palatalisation of the consonant affects whether you have an [ɨ] sound or an [i] sound. For example, depending on how you analyse Russian, /bɪtʲ/ and /bʲɪtʲ/ are a minimal pair ("to be" and "to beat", respectively), and surface roughly as [bɨtʲ]/[bˠɨtʲ] and [bʲitʲ]. However, in Russian, velars are always phonologically palatal, so you don't get this sort of minimal pair with /k/ (though you do get the odd borrowed word, like /kɨɾgɨzˈstan/, though most Russian speakers still say /kʲiɾˈgʲizʲija/, or at best /kʲiɾgʲizˈstan/, because there's a problem with encoding a velar followed by [ɨ] in this analysis of how Russian works).
In any case, my point is that the question of whether two utterances form a minimal pair or not can only be answered in relation to a particular linguistic variety, so some clarification might be needed on your part depending on what sort of answer you're after.
So long as there is one difference distinguishing the two words, it qualifies as a minimal pair, regardless of whether it is transcribed in superscript / as a diacritic. (The distinction between a transcription of, say, [pʲa] and [pja] is generally at the level of phonological theory, not the surface phonetic facts.)
However, I notice your two words differ in two ways: not just [k] vs [kʲ] but also [i] vs. [ɨ]. As such, no, your words would be merely "near" minimal pairs and not true minimal pairs per se.
Asked: 2015-08-25 08:47:11 -0400
Seen: 396 times
Last updated: Sep 03 '15