Re: Check out Origin of Ancient Languages

From: tgpedersen
Message: 16430
Date: 2002-10-19

> I'm tempted to argue that there's a hint of a svarabhakti between
> and [t]. I'm sure there's some [I] vowel colouring between [t] and
> [k], but it doesn't last long. I'm not sure why I perceive a vowel
> in the '/kll/' sequence; maybe there's a pitch variation indicating
> syllable. I will agree that a rendering as [ptIkl:i] is possible,
> though phonotactically its far nastier than [vess] for 'vests'.
> > Surely Torsten is not claiming the word has no other
> > realisations, but only that, given a special key (register), it is
> > occasionally sounded very much like he wrote.
> I thought he thought it sounded like that annoyingly frequently!
> Richard.
Just as in the army, the more stars on your shoulder, the sloppier
the salute, the more senior a Social Democrat party member, the
likelier he pronounces Socialdemokratiet "s^s^almti&D". This, I
think, is the way they make themselves understood: although a great
part of the phonemes of the word are gone, the duration of the word
is the same as if pronounced with all phonemes. I think the same is
case with "ptklli". The connotation is "surely we all know what we're
talking about so why bother"? Perhaps we should invent "mute schwa"s
to denote those missing phonemes?