Richard Wordingham wrote:

--- In phoNet@yahoogroups.com, "wtsdv" <liberty@...> wrote:
> --- In phoNet@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> >
> > . . . Voiceless approximants are silent :)
>
> By J. C. Catford's definition of approximant and resonant,
> that's true of resonants, but not of approximants.  Does
> your definition differ from his?  In his 'Fundamental
> Problems in Phonetics" he writes

Yes.

I was referring to what J. d. O'Connor calls frictionless
continuants in his Penguin (Pelican?) book, 'Phonetics'.  I referred
to them as approximants because that's how the IPA chart labels them.

From IPA guide Pullum and Ladusow

Approximant:: frictionless continuant. For Ladefoged, who coined the term (1964) a consonantal
sound articulated in a manner involving an opening in the oral tract not radical enough to produce
audible friction, thus IPA [[j]. [w]. [l] etc. Catford [1977,119-22] refines this; defining approximants
as having non-turbulent airflow when voiced by turbulent airflow when voiceless.
--------------------

Is this enough or do we have to still continue this farce?

Let's face the facts. There are bad/incompetent linguists..

Richard.



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
phoNet-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

-- 
Mark Hubey
hubeyh@...
http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey