Ask Your Question

kujirazame's profile - activity

2016-04-03 07:44:39 -0400 received badge  Notable Question (source)
2016-04-03 07:44:39 -0400 received badge  Famous Question (source)
2016-04-02 13:31:54 -0400 received badge  Popular Question (source)
2016-04-02 13:31:54 -0400 received badge  Notable Question (source)
2016-04-02 13:31:54 -0400 received badge  Famous Question (source)
2016-04-02 13:20:56 -0400 received badge  Popular Question (source)
2015-10-17 09:03:16 -0400 received badge  Popular Question (source)
2015-07-08 04:53:36 -0400 received badge  Editor (source)
2015-07-08 04:22:55 -0400 received badge  Organizer (source)
2015-07-08 04:21:48 -0400 asked a question What is stracturalism phonology?

Now I read linguistics book about structuralism phonology. The book is written “How do you analysis /ɛ/ /e/ /ɔ/ /o/?” The book is not written detail explanation.

I considered the answer. Would you please look at below?

/ɛ/ analysises  +front +rounded +mid- open. /e/ analysises  +front +rounded +mid-closed. /ɔ/ analysises  +back +unrounded +mid- open . /o/ analysises  +back +unrounded +mid-closed.

Does structuralism phonology analysis above answer?

I am a foreigner. And I dont learn English lectures in linguistics. If you dont understand my English,point out detail thing.

2015-07-08 04:17:52 -0400 asked a question What is the difference between sonorant and obstruent in phonology?

I study basic phonology. I enjoy studying this field of linguistics. But I sometimes confuse distinctive feature of sonorant and obstruent.

I know the phonetic meaning of obstruent, which represents stop (plosive) and fricative. But is there +obs representation in distinctive feature? I have seen it by myself. I often see -son. Does -son mean obstruent?

I guess sonorant is the opposite of obstruent. Phonetic sonorant involves vowel, liquid, trill and nasal. Does high sonority involve sonorant? Does low sonority involve obstruent? And can sonorant represent -obs?

2015-07-07 23:10:04 -0400 asked a question I want to know the meaning of “today's morphology is yesterday's syntax

I want to ask Thomas Givon's aphorism “today's morphology is yesterday's syntax.

In my country, there is a little information about his aphorism.

I suppose this aphorism relates to historical linguistics.

For example, English phrase “all be it” and “on to” changed “albeit” and “onto” according to Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univerb...

I guess yesterday’s syntactical of “all be it” and “on to” changed “albeit” and “onto” of today’s morpheme .

Is that right? If my answer is wrong, would you please correct it

2015-07-07 23:10:04 -0400 asked a question How do you analysis Dutch past tense suffix in phonological data?

Now I solve phonological exercise by 『A workbook in Phonology』 1999,Iggy Roca and Wyn Johnson, University of Essex, p17

I practice how to deal with phonological data. The exercise is dealt with Dutch past tense suffix below data. And I considered my answer. If there are some mistakes, could you please correct it.

This is not professors, associate professors or lecturers’ assignment. Please don’t misunderstand.

❪a❫ klapte [klaptə] “praised”

krabde [krabdə] “scratched”

redde [rɛdə]  “saved”

viste [vɪstə]  “fished”

raasde [razdə]  “raged”

zette [zɛtə]  “put”

mafte [maftə]  “slept”

kloofde [klovdə]  “split”

legde [lɛɣdə]  “laid”

lachte [laxtə]   “laughe”

❪1❫ What determines which form of the suffix will be attached to the stem?

Answer is /tə/ and /də/.

❪2❫What sort of process is illustrated in these data?

Progressive assimilation is illustrated in these date

❪3❫Is it possible, from the data supplied above, to determine the lexical representation of the suffix

I suppose lexical representation of the suffix is /tə/.

❪4❫The forms [zɛtə] and [rɛdə] would appear to be counterexamples to any rule you might postulate. Can you explain why, in fact, they are not? What else is going on here?

I guess there are underlying forms of [zɛxtə] and [rɛɣdə] because [lɛɣdə] has vowel /ɛ/ . Suffix /də/ are voiced assimilated. Then [rɛdə] are added phoneme /ɣ/ .  /ɣ/→ɛd  Voicess Suffix /tə/ of [zɛtə] is voiceless and voiceless assimilation. Voicelss phoneme /x/ of /ɣ/ is added. /x/→ɛt

Therefore, phoneme /x/ and /ɣ/ of underlying form of [zɛxtə] and [rɛɣdə] are deleted.

[zɛxtə] [rɛɣdə] underlying form ↓ [zɛtə]  --------- /x/- deletion ↓ -------  [rɛdə]   /ɣ/ - deletion ↓ [zɛtə] [rɛdə] surface form

Now reconsider ❪3❫ in the light of the further data supplied in ❪b❫

❪b❫

roemde [rumdə]  “praised”

zoende [zundə]  “kissed”

mengde [meŋdə] “mixed”

roerde [rurdə]  “stirred”

rolde [rɔldə]  “rolled”

aaide [ajdə]  “caressed”

skiede [skidə]  “skied”

I noticed phoneme m n ŋ r l j i before /də/. m n ŋ are nasal consonats. r l jare liquid consonants. i is vowel. So they are sonorant. Underlying form of /tə/ changed /də/

Sonorant də > tə

I am a foreigner. I dont take English lectures in linguistics. Some people might think it is difficult to understand. Could you please correct wrong things?