Re: [tied] Slavic palatalistions: why /c^/, /c/?

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:23:32 +0200, Grzegorz Jagodzinski
<grzegorj2000@...> wrote:

>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:00:11 +0200, Grzegorz Jagodzinski
>> <grzegorj2000@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Only two remarks to this interesting discussion. First, all would be
>>> OK if we assume [k] > [kJ] > [c] > [tS] > [S] in IPA transcription,
>>> with the palatal stop [c] instead of the obscure t^,
>>
>> Well, I don't use IPA transcription for affricates and
>> postalveolars/palatals, so I would write the above as [k] >
>> [k^] > [t^] > [c^] > [s^]
>
>OK about transcription, I also prefer single symbols for affricates, but I
>am not sure what [t^] means.

Voiceless palatal stop (Magyar <ty>, IPA <c>).

I have nothing against IPA <c> per se (unlike the silly IPA
curly-c, for what should be curly-s), but I can't use it,
because <c> is the dental/alveolar affricate.

The advantage is that I can use <k^> and <t^> for different
varieties of front-velar/palatal/post-alveolar stops, a
subtle distinction that cannot be made with IPA.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...