Do you pronounce a "d" sound before the affricate "j" /d_Z/ in "individual"? I personally pronounce the word as [In.d@.vId.d_Zu.@l] "in duh vid joo ul" not [In.d@.vI.d_Zu.@l] "in duh vi joo ul".
A "d" sound before the "j" in "indi
No, I just use a simple affricate in that word, with no preceding [d]. Thus, for me it's [In.d@"vI.dZu.@5].
<<No, I just use a simple affricate in that word, with no preceding [d]. Thus, for me it's [In.d@"vI.dZu.@5].>>
That's interesting. There was someone on another forum http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=257443 who said that they pronounced the word with a [d] sound before the [d_Z] and they thought they might be the only one who did that. But I'd say it's not just that person who does it, as I, and I'd say many others, also have a [d] sound before the affricate in that word. In fact, I've tried pronouncing "individual" without that [d] sound and it seems awkward to me without it.
By the way, I was wondering if [_] is the correct way to mark affricates in X-sampa or if they're marked a different way. Have I been marking my affricates correctly when I've been using [_]? I hope I haven't been marking them incorrectly.
That's interesting. There was someone on another forum http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=257443 who said that they pronounced the word with a [d] sound before the [d_Z] and they thought they might be the only one who did that. But I'd say it's not just that person who does it, as I, and I'd say many others, also have a [d] sound before the affricate in that word. In fact, I've tried pronouncing "individual" without that [d] sound and it seems awkward to me without it.
By the way, I was wondering if [_] is the correct way to mark affricates in X-sampa or if they're marked a different way. Have I been marking my affricates correctly when I've been using [_]? I hope I haven't been marking them incorrectly.
<<By the way, I was wondering if [_] is the correct way to mark affricates in X-sampa or if they're marked a different way. Have I been marking my affricates correctly when I've been using [_]? I hope I haven't been marking them incorrectly.>>
I actually wasn't sure about this, so I checked on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-SAMPA . The IPA "linking mark" is represented in X-SAMPA as [-\], so technically I guess it would be [d-\Z].
But I have seen some people represent affricates in IPA using a plosive symbol followed by a superscript (a practice that is acknowledged on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affricate ), in which case your [d_Z] would be acceptable. Given the choice between [d_Z] and [d-\Z], I would favor [d_Z] because it's simpler and more visually appealing.
So basically, you are correct. Or at least, you're not incorrect. ;-)
The only thing is, most of the times when I see affricates, people just use two basic symbols without adornment. So if you'd prefer a simpler approach, you could just use [dZ]. The only problem with this is that if you wanted to be completely unambiguous, you'd have to use syllabification dots to show the difference between the affricate [dZ] and sequences of [d.Z].
And then again, as it points out in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affricate , you have the case of Polish, which contrasts affricates with stop-fricative sequences even within one syllable (compare "czysta" with "trzysta"), in which case it would be absolutely necessary to use [-\] or [_].
So if you like to represent affricates using [_], then by all means keep on doing it.
I actually wasn't sure about this, so I checked on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-SAMPA . The IPA "linking mark" is represented in X-SAMPA as [-\], so technically I guess it would be [d-\Z].
But I have seen some people represent affricates in IPA using a plosive symbol followed by a superscript (a practice that is acknowledged on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affricate ), in which case your [d_Z] would be acceptable. Given the choice between [d_Z] and [d-\Z], I would favor [d_Z] because it's simpler and more visually appealing.
So basically, you are correct. Or at least, you're not incorrect. ;-)
The only thing is, most of the times when I see affricates, people just use two basic symbols without adornment. So if you'd prefer a simpler approach, you could just use [dZ]. The only problem with this is that if you wanted to be completely unambiguous, you'd have to use syllabification dots to show the difference between the affricate [dZ] and sequences of [d.Z].
And then again, as it points out in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affricate , you have the case of Polish, which contrasts affricates with stop-fricative sequences even within one syllable (compare "czysta" with "trzysta"), in which case it would be absolutely necessary to use [-\] or [_].
So if you like to represent affricates using [_], then by all means keep on doing it.
<<The only thing is, most of the times when I see affricates, people just use two basic symbols without adornment. So if you'd prefer a simpler approach, you could just use [dZ]. The only problem with this is that if you wanted to be completely unambiguous, you'd have to use syllabification dots to show the difference between the affricate [dZ] and sequences of [d.Z].>>
I tend to mark affricates when transcribing my speech, for instance /d_ZVd_Z/, or /d-\ZVd-\Z/ for "judge".
As for [d.Z], I can't think of any word where that would actually occur in English. There are however, words with [t.S]:
nutshell = /nVt.SEl/
I tend to mark affricates when transcribing my speech, for instance /d_ZVd_Z/, or /d-\ZVd-\Z/ for "judge".
As for [d.Z], I can't think of any word where that would actually occur in English. There are however, words with [t.S]:
nutshell = /nVt.SEl/
As a side note, in plain SAMPA (not X-SAMPA) it's transcribed as simply [dZ].
<<I actually wasn't sure about this, so I checked on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-SAMPA . The IPA "linking mark" is represented in X-SAMPA as [-\], so technically I guess it would be [d-\Z].>>
So I assume [-\] can also be used to represent prenasalized stops, prestopped nasals, diphthongs, triphthongs etc. if someone wants to mark them in any way, right?
So I assume [-\] can also be used to represent prenasalized stops, prestopped nasals, diphthongs, triphthongs etc. if someone wants to mark them in any way, right?
<<So I assume [-\] can also be used to represent prenasalized stops, prestopped nasals, diphthongs, triphthongs etc. if someone wants to mark them in any way, right?>>
For example, I pronounce "lion" with a triphthong [aI@] rather than bisyllabic [aI.@]. Could I write the triphthong in X-sampa as [a-\I-\@] to show that it's only one syllable with a triphthong rather than a two syllable sequence of a diphthong and a schwa?
For example, I pronounce "lion" with a triphthong [aI@] rather than bisyllabic [aI.@]. Could I write the triphthong in X-sampa as [a-\I-\@] to show that it's only one syllable with a triphthong rather than a two syllable sequence of a diphthong and a schwa?