Corrections on the first 9 videos
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 05. 2020
- Translations:
2:55 (Hebrew) Jerusalem
2:56 (Hebrew) Tiberias
3:48 (Hebrew) What’s there? I don’t hear anything…
11:02 (Arabic) Hey, I’m here with my pharyngeal sounds!
Links:
Xidnaf / @xidnaf
Langfocus “Why is English spelling so damn weird?!” • Why Is English Spellin...
it's great to see this! it is truly impossible to achieve perfection, we will always make mistakes and it was great to see almost like a season finale recapping highlights of your videos but better because we get to learn a bit more!
That being said, I am surprised that you didn't catch any mistakes regarding the phonemic inventory of Spanish in your Spanish Overview video-[w] and [ŋ] are not phonemic in Spanish-[w] is an allophone of /u/ before another vowel in the same syllable, and [ŋ] is an allophone of /n/ before (underlying) velar consonants, so including /x/ which is [h] for me-/ɲ/ is phonemic though, it's the "ñ" sound.
You also didn't include the phoneme /θ/, which makes sense if you are giving an overview of Bolivian Spanish specifically, but I feel like you didn't make it clear enough in that section that what you were describing was specifically Bolivian Spanish since you didn't mention the /θ/ phoneme at all.
Also, [β̞] is an allophone of /b/, they are entirely in complementary distribution, and /r/ is sometimes treated as a single phoneme since [ɾ] and [r] are largely in complementary distribution. Minimal pairs can be analyzed as /r/ vs /rr/, e.g. /pero/ vs /perro/.
Regarding your use of the IPA in English, you still seem to be confusing broad/narrow transcription with phonemic/phonetic transcription. Phonemes and (allo)phones can both be represented narrowly, with symbols that closely and accurately describe the sound using the IPA's specialized characters, whereas phonemes or phones represented with broad transcriptions use more abstracted and idealized symbols so as to simplify the transcription process; in plain English, it's easier to use the letters on the keyboard than it is to type in the IPA, but it is less precise/accurate, so linguists commonly use broad transcriptions, and make sure to specify what they mean by each symbol.
One thing to keep in mind is that phonemes are always in slashes and (allo)phones are always in brackets, regardless of how broad or narrow the transcription is, e.g. "go" and "goat" have a different allophones from that of "goal" because of the /l/, but native speakers can identify the sounds as being "the same" which is one of the justifications that linguists use to analyze them as the same phoneme. As a consequence of analyzing them as the same phoneme, when they are represented phonemically (i.e. in slashes), they must have the same vowel, regardless of how you want to transcribe that vowel. But when the words are represented phonetically (i.e. in brackets) it would be appropriate to represent "go " and "goat" with the same vowel, but "goal: with a different vowel because it does not have the same vowel quality (i.e. doesn't sound the same) as the other two, despite all three words having the same vowel phoneme.
This came up again in your most recent video when you were talking about the phonemes of proto Germanic but every symbol on the screen was in brackets. Not only should they have been in slashes, since they are reconstructed, not attested, they should also have an asterisk (as they did later in the video). Another thing you brought up in that video was the matter of counting the vowel phonemes-there are vowel qualities (presumably what you meant by "basic vowel") and suprasegmental features, as you point out, and we can say that we have reconstructed 6 vowel qualities in proto Germanic, and we can say that these 6 vowel qualities combine with three degrees of length and binary nasality to produce a total of 19 phonemic vowels, but only counting vowel qualities as phonemes does not fully describe the phonemic inventory of the language, since 6 vowels with 3 degrees of length as well as nasality could mean the language distinguishes 36 vowel phonemes.
In any case it's clear that you are putting a lot of effort into your content, and I commend you for being so open to constructive criticism and correcting the record. I look forward to what the future holds for this channel, keep up the good work!
4:23 numbers in Hebrew continue to agree with gender past 19, it’s just that the round numbers (20,30,40,50,60 etc) don’t agree with gender. So there’s still a difference between
עשרים ואחד -21 masculine
And
עשרים ואחת - 21 feminine
But not between
עשרים -20 masculine
עשרים - 20 feminine
Also the whole “stops being pluralized” thing is optional, both שישים שקלים and שישים שקל sound natural
Great video man!
11:33 that’s not entirely true.
Standard French, the one sanctioned by l’Académie Française, has 4 nasal vowels: /ɑ̃/, /ɔ̃/, /ɛ̃/ and /œ̃/. And many (I’d even say most) French dialects and accents have those four as well, though their exact realization may differ a bit.
HOWEVER, it is Parisian French that only has three nasal vowel phonemes: /ɑ̃/, /õ/ and /ã/.
It is true that /œ̃/ merged with /ɛ̃/, though the actual pronunciation of that phoneme in Parisian French is between [æ̃] and [ã] (depending on the speaker). Also, the /ɔ̃/ has evolved into [õ].
The reason you got mistaken twice was due to the fact that the French that is taught everywhere is not Standard French, but Parisian French. Parisian French is also the mainstream variation. All the known actors speak in Parisian French.
But I think it was also wrong to consider French as a single language with a single phonology. While it is nowhere as NEAR as diverse as the Arabic dialects, French still has a lot of variation. Not one being better to learn than any other. I think it would have been better to specify at the beginning WHICH version of French you were going to talk about :D
(4:20) I'd also add that using $ to refer to a specific currency is bad practice since there's lots of currencies using $ as it's symbol.
I could assume you mean USD, so US$ is valid. But I shouldn't assume.
Assuming you've studied Dutch, you actually have studied at least three languages with an intrusive consonant. Dutch has an intrusive "n" that appears rarely, but does appear in the common combination "heb je het" (heb je n'et). I dont blame you for not knowing because I couldn't find any information about this online and only know about it by being a native speaker
7:18 there is no infinitive form of can in Hebrew, you'll say
"להיות יכול"
instead.
as a native Hebrew speaker i can confidently say that if you used "לוכל" in a sentence I'll be very confused and probably think you said "נוכל".
from what i gathered it seems that the Hebrew Academy says that some people in the past try to make it a thing but it didn't catch on.
I disagree with you a bit about the L, or at least somewhat. I don't think I've personally ever heard a velar L in American English or read about it in linguistic material, though I could imagine L vocalization could create a somewhat similar sound. Personally, for my own English I'd say it's about a [ɤ] in many codas (in some cases it's more of a pharyngealized dentialveolar lateral, I've not quite yet tracked down in what environments I have the different allophones)
Depending on how you're pronouncing 'alveolar' you might be pleased to know there're two main pronunciations of that word (that I know of at least), and in the UK so I've heard it's pronounced a bit more like how it looks. Also how I normally pronounce it, which would be like [ˌäɤviˈəʉ̯lˤə˞ ] (my stresses can switch back and forth, but there honestly about the same level of stress anyways, [ə˞ ] here is a bit less rhotic than normal for American English)
5:25 Don't forget "shadayim" (breasts). :D
11:34 Fun fact: in Québec, we still have /œ̃ː/