Lidepla
plosive-fricative sequence VS affricate
https://www.facebook.com/groups/lidepla/permalink/1436512996408433/
Tobias Conradi
plosive-fricative sequence VS affricate
The difference between the plosive-fricative sequences [ts], [dz], [tʃ], [dʒ] on the one hand and the corresponding affricates [t͡s], [d͡z] , [t͡ʃ], [d͡ʒ] is small and some humans may find it diffucult to distinguish them. IPA has the tie bar optional, so sometimes the affricates are written simply as a sequence of the corresponding plosives and fricatives [ts], [dz], [tʃ], [dʒ].
In Lidepla three affricates have a grapheme, [t͡s] has not. In Esperanto there are also three affricates with grapheme, but here the one without is [d͡z]. Cyrillic has dedicated symbols, maybe the graphemes in Lidepla are influences from Slavic languages as in Zamenhof's Esperanto.
But in an IAL should there be a meaning bearing difference between [ts], [dz], [tʃ], [dʒ] and [t͡s], [d͡z] , [t͡ʃ], [d͡ʒ]? If Lidepla says no, then the current distinction between <tsh> = [tʃ] and <ch> = [t͡ʃ] could be removed by writing <ch> as plosive+fricative <tsh>.
Dmitry Ivanov: If you search the Lidepla dictionary, you'll find the combination of letters TSH only in two compound words: petshi (50, pet+shi) and otshi (80, ot+shi). These are compound words, and you basically pronounce them as one word after another: pet+shi, ot+shi. And there are no words "pechi" or "ochi", so there are no words to distinguish those compound words from. Thus, in Lidepla there are no minimal pairs of the type "plosive-fricative sequence VS affricate" where it could be sense-distinguishing. Thus, there is no "distinction between <tsh> = [tʃ] and <ch> = [t͡ʃ] " and no problem.
Tobias Conradi: That is not correct, since you only analysed based on a given dictionary.
What happens if someone hears something like [petʃi]/[pet͡ʃi] and does not know a word <petshi> nor a word <pechi>? What will he write down?
Also, for proper names what will the person write down? Even if one has the current complete dictionary available is it Pechi, or Petshi?
Lidepla demands that speakers with perfect command of the language can distinguish the two. Non-existence of minimal pairs is never a defense.
Dmitry Ivanov: A big problem, yes. Somebody doesn't know the word "50" and doesn't know how to write it down. In practice you never even think of "tsh" because it simply doesn't occur. Anybody with *some* command of the language knows it. A language is a system as a whole. If you want to invent some ideal phonetic writing, it's your right. It would be good, though, that you have at least *some* command of Lidepla before making proposals.
Tobias Conradi: You can also invert it and say that a person does not know one of the words in the master dictionary, maybe just because it was added only recently. And then the person hears something like [Xt͡ʃY] / [XtʃY], with X and Y denoting some sound sequences. What will the person write down?
And what is your answer regarding "for proper names what will the person write down? Even if one has the current complete dictionary available is it Pechi, or Petshi?"
"In practice you never even think of "tsh" because it simply doesn't occur." --- Well, it was you who wrote " petshi (50, pet+shi) and otshi (80, ot+shi) ". Are the words for 50 and 80 supposed never to be spoken?
"It would be good, though, that you have at least *some* command of Lidepla before making proposals." - Can you explain why? Several people made proposals about general characteristics of an IAL - why shall their proposals be less valid if they don't have "*some* command of Lidepla". And, how do you define "*some*"?