tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2512448785875946673.post3610330424068235726..comments2023-06-11T03:34:28.199-04:00Comments on Khalani: About inconsistenciesArassar Shelakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00804798175886257366noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2512448785875946673.post-36242870517291953402012-02-29T15:50:09.831-05:002012-02-29T15:50:09.831-05:00You are completely right, BadgerBrock, about the b...You are completely right, BadgerBrock, about the brackets, it was more of an stylistic choice. About the ʃ vs. ʒ dichotomy, let me explain.<br /><br />The fact is that sz and sh are two different sounds in Khalani, humans may confuse these two ways of symbolizing the affricate, but the fact is that the sz in Raszagal should actually be 'zh' and thus, the ʒ. In the case of Shelak for example the transcription would be rightly be ['ʃɛlak].<br /><br />I didn't want to go into all that at the time, but now that you mention it, that's the reason for the transcription.<br /><br />Hope too see more of you around here, and thanks for the comment!Arassar Shelakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00804798175886257366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2512448785875946673.post-87557995329097132602011-12-28T16:19:05.763-05:002011-12-28T16:19:05.763-05:00/'ɹaʒagal/ should rather be transcribed ['.../'ɹaʒagal/ should rather be transcribed ['ɹaʃagal]. Also, conventionally final realizations should be written in square brackets and not slashes, which normally represent words in deep structure, i.e. before the derivation of allophonic processes.BadgerBrockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05854334974280108298noreply@blogger.com