Wednesday, October 27, 2004, 01:52 GMT
Would you call the [x] in ''loch'' a phoneme or an allophone of /h/? I say it's a phoneme but it could equally just be an allophone of /h/.
|
[h] and [x]. Phonemes or allophones?
Wednesday, October 27, 2004, 01:52 GMT
Would you call the [x] in ''loch'' a phoneme or an allophone of /h/? I say it's a phoneme but it could equally just be an allophone of /h/.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004, 03:49 GMT
It's either an allophone of /k/ or it's own phoneme depending on your dialect (or idiolect). It's definitely its own phoneme in some parts of Britian (notably Scotland) but generally not so outside.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004, 04:27 GMT
[k] is an allophone of [x] in standard pronunciations.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004, 05:42 GMT
By which Mxsmanic refers to Mid-western USA, RP and (maybe) Esturay English but definitely not Scottish nor Welsh nor Cornish.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004, 19:34 GMT
Yes.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004, 22:18 GMT
''It's either an allophone of /k/ or it's own phoneme depending on your dialect (or idiolect).''
Jim, What is the difference between a dialect and an idiolect. Aren't they the same thing?
Wednesday, October 27, 2004, 23:48 GMT
Mxsmanic,
Just making things clear. Fisherman, An idiolect is the language, the grammar/pronunciation/vocab./etc., of an individual person. A dialect is the language of a group of people.
Thursday, October 28, 2004, 01:19 GMT
''An idiolect is the language, the grammar/pronunciation/vocab./etc., of an individual person. A dialect is the language of a group of people.''
So, therefore, the correct thing to say would be that the phoneme /K/ exists in my idiolect and not my dialect. Does /K/ exist in your idiolect? Also, how many phonemes are in your accent or in English. See linked thread, http://www.antimoon.com/forum/2004/5904.htm
Thursday, October 28, 2004, 07:50 GMT
I might exist in your dialect ... if you're Scottish, for example.
Friday, October 29, 2004, 00:09 GMT
"I might exist in your dialect ..." I think not. Typo: "It might exist in your dialect ..."
Friday, October 29, 2004, 15:58 GMT
Well since [x] only appears in one word in English, that being loch, it seems impossible to believe that they are not allophones. Unless someone can find me a minimal pair where they assign different meaning.
Monday, November 01, 2004, 00:01 GMT
Och y' cannae right on that one laddie ... only one word? Nay. And by the way, "loch" and "lock" mean different things.
Monday, November 01, 2004, 01:54 GMT
I think James Rose was talking about [x] and [h] not [x] and [k].
[h] only ever occurs at the beginning of a word and [x] only ever occurs at the end of a word and they are very similar sounds too. So, therefore you could say that [x] and [h] are allophones. [x] and [h] sound similar enough to be considered allophones.
Thursday, November 04, 2004, 03:37 GMT
Only most people who don't use [x] would use [k] in its place. Hence if you've got no [x], then it's an allophone of /k/ not /h/.
Friday, November 05, 2004, 15:48 GMT
I agree.
I pronounce the word "or-chid" with [x] most people pronounce it with a [k]. Regards, Paul V. |