Talk:Taos phonology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Languages  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics / Phonetics   
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Phonetics Task Force.
 

1946 vs 1948[edit]

I'm thinking of changing the page to go with the earlier 1946 analysis and footnote the 1948 analysis. It would make it easier to compare Taos with Kiowa and other Tanoan languages. Plus it makes the syllable structure a little cleaner. – ishwar  (speak) 05:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way of doing this with just one table? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 08:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, like the way it is now with a table of the 1946 consonants in the footnotes. I would just switch them.
Or are you saying that you dont like having a table in the footnotes? Or that you dont like too much mentioning of different analyses? – ishwar  (speak) 00:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm just thinking that if we're going to use the 1946 analysis, we don't really need another table. The differences can be summarized in one or two sentences. Something like "in Trager (1948), aspirated, ejective, and labialized consonants are analyzed as clusters with /h/, /ʔ/ and /w/ respectively rather than single phonemes." — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it could be done that way. – ishwar  (speak) 16:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
All right. I'm for it. 1946, full speed ahead! — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 16:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Words[edit]

I'm thinking we might want more example words. The only ones we've got are "earth" and "corn." — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In my opinion, the best grammatical descriptions are those that are richly exemplified (even better, over-exemplified). Unfortunately, that is not how Trager's grammatical description is. In his 1946 sketch, he has a list of words at the end as a sampling of the lexicon. One would have to search through his publications in order to get the examples. Harrington has more examples, but he has a different transcription system and some of his transcriptions do not seem to have a one-to-one correspondence to Trager, so they would have to be left as "is" in his notation (converting H's phonetics to T's phonemics would require interpretation, which is original research).
Anyway, I can do this after some of other stuff is completed. The tone/stress stuff is a bit annoying to read.... (it really calls out for more research.) – ishwar  (speak) 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm beginning to address this. – ishwar  (speak) 19:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)