4 ms·
You got me thinking about minimal pairs of /p/ and /pʰ/ in English (at least my British English anyway). I'm not a linguist, but is this not a minimal pair?
by tombh 5y ago
You got me thinking about minimal pairs of /p/ and /pʰ/ in English (at least my British English anyway). I'm not a linguist, but is this not a minimal pair?
Mice pour (water into a jug)
My spore (as opposed to your spore)
Or can minimal pairs not cross word boundaries?
- bradrn 5y agoInteresting question! Not a linguist, but I’d be inclined to the view that the word boundary itself is phonemic: these can be transcribed (for me) as /ma͡is poː/ vs /ma͡i spoː/. Supporting this analysis is the fact that the [p] vs [pʰ] distinction then can be derived using the same phonological rules as usual; also, for me, the /a͡i/ in /ma͡is/ is slightly shorter than that in /ma͡i/. But, as I said, exactly pinning down the phonemes of a language can be tricky.
- tombh 5y agoThanks for the cool IPA! I think that seems totally reasonable that the word boundary itself is phonetic, as such it could be intentionally accentuated (as a longer than usual pause) to clarify. Oh wait but isn't [pʰ] word-initial only anyway? So in a way it has an implicit word boundary. BTW does your accent not aspirate "pour"? So you don't do /ma͡is pʰoː/?
- bradrn 5y ago> I think that seems totally reasonable that the word boundary itself is phonetic, as such it could be intentionally accentuated That’s not what I mean. By ‘the word boundary is phonemic’ [not ‘phonetic’!], I mean that the word boundary can be transcribed on the phonemic level, and is thus allowed to influence the phonetic realisation of other phonemes. > BTW does your accent not aspirate "pour"? So you don't do /ma͡is pʰoː/? No, it does: [mɑ͡ispʰoː].